Michigan Supreme Court, 1902

Fredonia National Bank v. Tommei

Michigan Supreme Court · Decided December 2, 1902 · Grant

131 Mich. 674; 92 N.W. 348; 1902 Mich. LEXIS 720

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Cedar Rapids National Bank v. Snoozy (N.D. 1927)
National Bank of Commerce v. Morgan (Ala. 1921)
Old National Bank v. Gibson (Wash. 1919)
First National Bank v. McNairy (Minn. 1913)
Glines v. State Savings Bank (Mich. 1903)
New Jersey Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. McGrath (Mich. 1929)
Central Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Wachman (Mich. 1922)
Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Quasebarth (Kan. 1919)
Central Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Stotter (Mich. 1919)
Merchants National Bank of St. Paul v. Santa Maria Sugar Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1914)
Second National Bank v. Bank of Alma (Ark. 1911)
Detroit National Bank v. Union Trust Co. (Mich. 1906)
Rogers v. Detroit Savings Bank (Mich. 1906)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. A second deposition of the cashier was taken, after due notice, in Fredonia. Counsel for the defendant objected to the introduction of this deposition in evidence. Its admission rested in the sound discretion of the court, in the same manner as the recall of a witness for further examination rests in its discretion. The second deposition was taken mainly to show the condition of White’s account, which was not given in the first deposition. We think there was no error in admitting it.

2. We think the evidence on the part of the plaintiff *676conclusively established that it was a bona fide purchaser of these notes. It paid for them by crediting the amount thereof upon White’s account, and permitting him to check It all out before their maturity. Defendant gave notice of fraud in the inception of the notes. Plaintiff then assumed the burden of showing bona fides. It was then incumbent upon defendant to first show some evidence of mala fides, before introducing evidence of fraud. The case is within Drovers’ Nat. Bank v. Blue, 110 Mich. 31 (67 N. W. 1105, 64 Am. St. Rep. 327). It was immaterial that subsequently White, who kept his account at the bank, had deposits equal to or exceeding the amount of these notes.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.