Case Name: Charles E. Jennison and Another v. Thomas A. Parker
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1859-11-09
Citations: 7 Mich. 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles E. Jennison and Another v. Thomas A. Parker.
Judges: Martin Ch. J., and Christiancy J., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 355–365

Head Matter:
Charles E. Jennison and Another v. Thomas A. Parker.
Where, in plaintiff’s absence, his clerk received of his debtor a draft, and accepted the same to bo applied, when paid, on the debtor’s account, and after the draft fell due the plaintiff wrote the debtor respecting it, not repudiating the act of the clerk, and, on subsequently suing the debtor, offered to return the ■unpaid draft, — Held, that these facts furnished evidence from which a jury might infer a ratification by plaintiff of the acts of the clerk.
Where a party receives negotiable paper from his debtor, with the debtor’s indorsement, as collateral security for his demand, and not as agent merely, it is his duty to present the same for payment when due, and take the proper steps to charge the debtor as indorser; and failing to do this, he makes the paper his own.
Heard October 6th.
Decided November 9th.
Error to Wayne Circuit.
Parker brought assumpsit in the court below, against plaintiffs in error, declaring upon the common counts, and upon a note for $532,22 made by defendants September 1st, 1856, due, with interest, on demand.
Defendants pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of set - off, with further notice that they would “ show that the plaintiff received of the defendants, as part payment of the note copied in said declaration, a certain draft drawn by Frost & Bradley on Charles Bradley for $120, 36, payable at twenty !days after sight, dated July 19th, 1857, and plaintiff has converted the same to his own use,” &c<
On the trial before a jury, plaintiff introduced in evidence and read to the jury the note set out in the declaration, and evidence was also introduced showing an account between the parties, upon which there was claimed $139 18-100, being the only demands sought to be recovered. And thereupon plaintiff rested.
A witness was then introduced on behalf of defendants who, being sworn, testified that ho was in the employment of the plaintiff as his clerk, in July and Augusi, 1857 ; that plaintiff was then doing business in the city of Detroit; that the defendants enclosed to plaintiff a draft drawn by Frost & Bradley of Saginaw, on Charles Bradley of the city of Detroit, for $120,36, payable to the order of defendants, and by them endorsed to the plaintiff, dated July 20th, 1857, payable twenty days after sight, and which was afterwards accepted, and was to be applied, if paid, to the credit of defendants; and said witness testified that said draft had never been paid: That deponent wrote in plaintiff’s name the two letters to defendants first given below; that the third letter copied below is in the hand writing of the plaintiff; that witness had no directions from plaintiff to write those letters; that the plaintiff was absent when witness wrote the two letters; that the draft, being produced by the plaintiff, was shown by the witness to the defendants, who stated it was the same referred to in the first letter mitten by him. It.was admitted such letters were received by the defendants, by due course of mail.
Thereupon the plaintiff offered to return and deliver said draft to the defendants, which was refused, and the counsel for defendants next read said letters in evidence.
The defendants thereupon offered to read said draft to the jury, to which the plaintiff objected, and such objection .was sustained by the court, and defendants excepted.
The defendants then produced William Jennison, Jr., as a witness, who was sworn, and stated, in substance, that he was directed by the defendants, his brothers, to, and he did, write the plaintiff, on or about the 25th September, 1857, as follows — which was received by plaintiff.
“Detroit, September 25, 1857.
Thomas A. Parker, Esq., Detroit.
Dear Sir — My brothers, C. E. Jennison Ss Co., have just written me stating that they presumed the Frost & Bradley note was paid from their not hearing from you, and that they would not be held responsible for its payment. Yours, &c., W. Jennison, Jr.”
And afterwards, in a conversation with the plaintiff, he, witness, told him that he had been guilty of gross negligence in not returning the draft. That on the fourth day of January, 1858, the witness paid plaintiff §100, and on the second of February, 1858, §32, for balance of his demands, after deducting the amount of said draft, which was left unsettled, and which amount the plaintiff also claimed should have been paid.
Thereupon the testimony being closed, the court charged the jury that there was not sufficient evidence before them to take into consideration anything relating to said draft; and such evidence was withdrawn from them, and defendants excepted.
Defendants’ counsel requested the court to charge the jury that if they believed said draft was transmitted as aforesaid by defendants to, and received by, the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was bound to present the same for payment, and to notify the drawers and the defendants of such presentment, and the non - payment of said draft. And also that if the plaintiff had neglected so to do, that he could not recover in this action.
The court refused so to charge, and defendants excepted. The jury having returned a verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed, defendants brought error.
The following are the letters above referred to:
“Detroit, July 24, 1857.
Messrs. C. E. Jennison & Bro.:
Gentlemen — Your favor of the 20th was duly received, and your draft on Chas. Bradley duly accounted, and will fall due on the 15th August. Mr. Parker is now in New York, and you had better hold the plow until his return, which will be the first of next week. I am,
Yours very respectfully, Thomas A. Parker.
Ray.”
“Detroit, August 19, 1857.
Messrs.. C. E. Jennison & Bro., Bay City:
Gentlemen — The draft on Chas. Bradley, which you enclosed to me, fell 'due on the 15th, but was not paid, I had it protested, but still hold it a few days, for Mr, Bradley is at present absent from home, and he may pay it on his return, which will be in a day or two. Please remit balance of note at your earliest possible convenience, and much oblige Yours truly,
Thomas A. Parker.
Ray.”
“Detroit, September 26, 1857.
Messrs. C. E. Jennison & Bro. :
Gentlemen — I received a letter from your brother, William Jennison, Jr., Esq., this evening, saying that he had. just received a letter from you stating that you presumed, the Frost & Bradley note was paid, and from your not hearing from mo, that you would not be held responsible for its payment.
You know that it was not paid when due, for you got a notice of its protest. But as it is a matter of very little consequence to me whether you pay your own acceptances, or notes which are your own, or not, I will say no more about it, but merely request the favor of your paying me the amount due on your note given over a year ago, with interest, about §215, and the account enclosed, §39. Yours respectfully, T. A. Parker.”
Holbrook & Bishop, for plaintiffs in error.
Maynard efe Meddaugh, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Manning J.:
The court erred in charging the jury " there was not sufficient evidence before them to take into consideration anything in relation to the draft," and in withdrawing the evidence from the jury.
It was argued there was no evidence of the clerk's authority to receive the draft. Admitting this to' be so, there was evidence in plaintiff's letter to defendants of the 26th September, tending to show a ratification by plaintiff of the clerk's acts. They were not repudiated; and plaintiff placed his want of accountability on the ground that the draft was not paid when due, and that defendants had notice of its protest. His language is " you know that it (the draft) was not paid when due, for you got a notice of its protest."
This letter, and plaintiff's offer to return the draft on the trial, would have warranted the jury in finding a ratification of the acts of the clerk. And if the draft was received as collateral security for what defendants were owing plaintiff, to be applied when paid, and not before, it was his duty to present it for payment on the day it became due, and to give notice of its non - payment to defendants, by whom it was indorsed. — Dayton v. Trull, 23 Wend. 345; Bridges v. Berry, 3 Taunt. 130; Edw. on Bills, 445, Had he credited defendants with it when it was received, it would not have been such a payment of their debt, pro tanto, as would have barred an action for the same amount on the account itself, on his showing- he had taken the necessary steps to charge defendants as indorsers, and offered to return the draft on the trial. Had he received it in payment, it would not have discharged the original liability of defendants, if it was not ptaid when due, unless there was an express agreement to that effect when it was taken, or plaintiff had lost his remedy on the draft against defendants as indorsers. It is therefore immaterial that defendants were not to be credited with it until it was paid. The same reason for notice of non -payment exists in both cases.
In Lawrence v. Mc Calmont 2 How. 427, the notes were were not held as collateral security by McCalmont, Brothers & Co. as appears very clearly from the case. They were sought to be charged as agents for collection merely. The request to charge and the charge of the court made on the trial {pp. 448, 449), show]] this, as well as the language of Judge Story on this part of the case, in delivering the opinion of the court. He says "the notes having been left for collection only, with the agents of the London house, although indorsed by the Messrs. Lawrence, they do not fall within the strict rules of commercial law applicable to negotiable paper" (p. 454). He also'says, in speaking of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, "There the question was, not whether a person receiving a note as collateral security for an antecedent debt, was not bound to due diligence in its collection, otherwise he made it his own, which was not doubted; but " &c., thereby clearly recognizing the liability of McCalmont, Brothers & Co. had the notes been received by them as collateral security, and not as agents for collection merely.
It may be said plaintiff's letter was evidence for as well as against Mm: That is true, but it was for the jury to say what effect should be given to it.
We think the court erred also in refusing to let defendant's counsel read the draft as evidence to the jury. It was cumulative evidence only, but that was not a good reason for rejecting it.
The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial be granted.
Martin Ch. J., and Christiancy J., concurred.