The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1879-01-24
SUPREME COURT.
JAMES MATTESON
AMOS MORRIS.

ANUS mOhhlo.
These proceedings are for the purpose o
foreclosing two mortgages and accompanying
notes, one dated Feb. IA, 1878, for &s,469, pay
able az the expiration Of five years, with inter
est anHualy at ten per cent, and the othel
dated February 2S, 1878, for 81 ITO, payable in
one year with interest at ten per cent.
These securities purport to be payabls Il
Milo d. Mstteson or order, and are claimed by
complainant to havs been assigned to him on
the 2ist Of July, 1878.
The bill in each case sets up that Morris
claimed the notes and mortgages to be forger.
ies, and he also claims that he never had any
but certain specified dealings with Milo D.
Matteson; which claims are contradicted BY
complainant who AYERS dealings to the amount
OF $4,000 borrowed and received by Morris
and notes to the number Of upwards OF forty
from small sums up to more than five thousand
dollars each.
The bill does not in either case make any
ayerment concerning the consideration OF either
or the securities in suit but AYERS the amount
due and unpaid and asks decree for the full
amount.
An answer under oath was required and
Morris answered, relying upon certain defects
IN the averments Of the Bills, denying positively
any consideration received; denying the exc
cuton and delivery of any such notes and
mortgages and any contract to make or deliver
'nem, and averIng his ignorance Of their exist
ence, except as derived from the assertions OF
Milo ID. Matteson. The answer asserts that if
any such papers are in existence they we're OBJ
famed by some fraud in procuring the sigma
lure, and that defendant has no knowledge OF
making or acknowledging them. He also de-
mes on information and belief that complain
ant lie bona fide holder.
These mortgages, together with third one
'of s6,O1s, dated June 2lst, 1873, were recorded
Ia Cass county, where the lands lie, on June
20, 1873. Morris lived in Van Buren, county, as
cid also Milo ID. Matteson; complainant lives
IN the state Of New York. The assignments
were never recorded.
One OF these bills was filed in April 1875 and
the other IN September 1876
On the 4th of August, 1873, bill had been
lied by Morris against Milo d. Matteson to set
aside the mortgages and restrain their trans
fer. The oath OF that defendant was waved
bnt be answered without oath, setting up the
assignment to complainant and denying the
statements Of the bill, but not explaining the
consideration Of the notes, beyond avenng the
advance OF s41O on the earliest and s24O on the
second. He admits no money was advanced on
the third. That suit does not appear to have
been brought to conclusion, and the substan-
tial merits are all involved in the present con-
troversy.
preliminary question was raised whether
complainant stands in the same position as
Milo ID. Matteson upon the defense OF want OF
consideration, il the paper is genuine, or
whether as bona fde holder without notice
he can recover, although no consideration
should have passed.
Complainant is not an endorsee of either OF
these notes. He took them under assignment
merely, one OF them purportng to be guaran-
teed and the other not. He Is not therefore.
under our statutes, &C. L. $780, in position
10 sue upon them at law in his own name.
Moreover, there lie no evidence Of delivery be
yond such presumption az may arise from the
possession OF the assignments, which we're pre-
tended, and there is no evidences whatever that
he paid anything whatever for the securities.
Inc only testimony showing any possession Of
the documents relates to their being received
from him by mail several DAYS after Morris
hied his bill. AS there was time in the inter-
val TO send forward the papers and have them
returned this testimony is not very important.
The testimony concerning the papers was such |
as in our opinion to call for explanation. and !
we can not assume from anything we find in
the record that James Mstteson. with or with
cut notice, ever gave value for these papers.
He is, therefore, bound by any equities that
would affect his brother Milo.
The whole case is open, then, to epouiries
whether these papers we're either foroed or
fraudulent, or whether on the other hand tbav
are valid and binding.
Before proceeding to discuss the inertia tho
case is one raising some questions cooce,n;no
the burden OF proof.
II is not explained satisfactorily why va b,vs
not been furnished with the testimony Of thu
parties best acquainted With the facts. Jana.
Matteson and Milo d. Matteson are the on,,
persons, so far as we can gather from tho
record, who could tell under what circumstance
and for what purposes the alleged assignments
we're made. Milo D.IMatteson and Morris both
must know whether any transaction existed
which could Isive legal efficiency to the securi-
ties and whether such papers we're actually and
Intentionally executed. The notaries, who were
subscribing witnesses, did not see the signature
affixed and know nothing of the business be-
yond recognition and acknowledgements. One
subscribing wltness-the father Of complainant
was not sworn. James and Milo were not
sworn. Morris put IN discovery under oath.
and Waa not awaxn furfhar IL baoov,o. =.