Court Opinion

ID: 9732174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:10:39.611884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:22.811729
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.
(dissenting). It is impossible, in my opinion, to ascertain from this record whether or not the defendant is an accommodation party. The question involves the interpretation of a classic ambiguity in the negotiable instruments law, that found in the original section 29 thereof.  (CL 1948, § 439.31 [Stat Ann § 19.71].) See Ames, The Negotiable Instruments Law, 14 Harvard LR 241; Beutel’s Bran-nan, Negotiable Instruments Law (7th ed), p 554. If defendant is not an accommodation party, what is his status with respect to the instrument? This question, not yet answered, lies at the very threshhold of the case.
The judgment should he reversed and the cause remanded for trial on the merits. Costs to appellant.
Boyles, J., concurred with Smith, J.
The late Justice Reid took no part in the decision of this case.