Case Name: HARRIS v. RIVARD
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1933-05-16
Citations: 263 Mich. 134
Docket Number: Docket No. 21, Calendar No. 37,033
Parties: HARRIS v. RIVARD.
Judges: McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
HARRIS v. RIVARD.
Appeal and Error — Weight op Evidence — New Trial.
Where there is evidence in support of jury’s verdict, which is not challenged by motion for new trial, judgment thereon is affirmed, on appeal.
Appeal from Bay; Houghton (Samuel Gr.), J.
Submitted April 14,1933.
(Docket No. 21, Calendar No. 37,033.)
Decided May 16, 1933.
Assumpsit by John B. Harris and Daniel S. Whyte, copartners doing business as Harris & Whyte, against Adolph J. Rivard for balance due on promissory notes. Verdict and judgment for de-
fendant. Plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
John E. Kinnane, for plaintiffs.
Charles C. Legatz, for defendant.

Opinion:
Clark, J.
Plaintiffs were chattel mortgagees and defendant mortgagor of certain farm and otheir chattels to secure notes. After one extension and several conferences for further extension of time of payment, plaintiffs went to defendant's farm, when they received the chattels which they later sold, and, crediting the avails on the notes, sue for the remainder.
The decisive issue of fact is whether the chattels were surrendered and accepted in full satisfaction of the debt or taken in the usual manner in such eases. This issue was submitted to a jury, who found for defendant. Prom judgment on verdict, plaintiffs have appealed.
In direct testimony on the issue there is flat contradiction between the parties. A significant circumstance favoring plaintiffs is that a regular chattel mortgage sale was held. Circumstances significant in defendant's favor are that he signed transfer of title of an automobile covered by the mortgage, and that he required of plaintiffs a receipt for the articles, in lieu of return of the notes, which plaintiffs did not have with them. Clearly there is evidence supporting the verdict, which is not challenged by motion for new trial.
We find no error. Affirmed.
McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.