Case Name: William Hyler v. Henry Nolan
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1881-01-19
Citations: 45 Mich. 357
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Hyler v. Henry Nolan.
Judges: Tbe other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
William Hyler v. Henry Nolan.
Absolute transfers mag be shown to be by way of seev/rity.
Parol evidence is admissible to explain the true consideration for a contract and apply the instrument to the subject matter.
One who has given a written assignment, absolute in form, of a particular payment described in a mortgage, and has also given the accompany, ing note, can nevertheless show by parol that the transfer .was not unqualified but was made as security for repayment of money borrowed from the transferee.
The finding of a trial judge, sitting without a jury, is conclusive as to the witness’s credibility and the effect of his evidence.
Case made from Kent. '
Submitted Jan. 13.
Decided Jan. 19.
Assumpsit. Plaintiff had judgment below.
Affirmed.
. John A. Fairfield for plaintiff.
B. F. Lockwood for defendant.

Opinion:
Graves, J.
This record presents the single question of law whether it was competent for the plaintiff to give parol evidence that his written assignment to the defendant, absolute in form, of a particular payment described in a mortgage, together with the accompanying note, was in fact made as security for a sum of money borrowed by the plaintiff of the defendant, and not as an unqualified transfer. The circuit judge allowed the evidence and the defendant excepted. The ruling was correct.
The purpose of the evidence was to explain the true consideration between the parties to the contract, and apply the instrument to the subject-matter, and this was entirely proper. Colman v. Post 10 Mich. 422; Kimball v. Myers 21 Mich. 276; Bowker v. Johnson 17 Mich. 42.
Tbe question of credibility and tbe effect of tbe evidence was for tbe circuit judge wbo found tbe facts, and bis determination is conclusive.
Tbe judgment is affirmed with costs.
Tbe other Justices concurred.