Where the charge of the court to the jury, whether right or wrong, is in favor of the party excepting, it will not be reviewed, on error.1 NOTE. On writ of error, only errors adverse to plaintiff in error are corrected, Berry v. Lowe, 10 Mich. 9; People v. Scott, 6 id. 287; Richards v. Tozer, 27 id. 451; Davis v. Bush, 25 id. 432; will not review charge in favor of party excepting, Comstock v. Smith, 20 id. 338; nor an error which could not affect the verdict, Clark v. Moore, 3 id. 55; Cummings v. Stone, 13 id. 70; Sinclair v. Murphy, 14 id. 392; Sheehan v. Dalrymple, 19 id. 239; Sleight v. Henning, 12 id. 371; Hickey v. Baird, 9 id. 32; so as to admission of evidence from which no injury could result to plaintiff in errror, M. M. Co. v. N. M. Co., 11 id. 186; Rose v. Lewis, 10 id. 483; Hill v. Robinson, 23 id. 24; Wright v. Wilson, 17 id. 192; Final v. Backus, 18 id. 218; and as to instructions, if those adverse to plaintiff in error were all correct, Niagara F. Ins. Co. v. DeGraff, 12 id. 124; nor for errors adverse to the party who won the verdict, Clark v. McGraw, 14 id. 139; party on whose motion error was committed should show that complaining party was not prejudiced, Campau v. Traub, 27 id. 215; error in excluding evidence on cross-examination is cured by allowing same party to examine same witnesses fully in its own behalf, Burden v. People, 26 id. 162; so if Brigham vs. Gurney. A promissory note payable to bearer, or indorsed in blank, may be sued in the name of an agent who holds it for collection.2 ERROR to Oakland Circuit Court. T. J. Drake, for plaintiff in error. By the Court, WING, J. This is an action of assumpsit, brought by Gurney, before a justice of the peace, upon a one objects to incompetent evidence, is overruled and afterwards proves the same himself, Kost v. Bender, 25 id. 515. - Party cannot assign for error that which errs in his own favor except under peculiar circumstances, Bailey v. Campbell, 1 Scam. 47; Kitchell . Bratton, id. 300; the erroneous decisions must prejudice the rights of the party assigning it for error, Ahrenz v. Reihle, 1 Scam. 340; Schencker v. Risley, 3 id. 483; Thorn v. Watson, 5 Gilm. 26; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 66 Ill. 190; Havighorst v. Lindberg, 67 id. 463; Smith v. Hickman, 68 id. 314; Zepp v. Hager, 70 id. 223; adult defendants can not assign errors which affect only infant defendants, Tibbs v. Allen, 27 id. 119; Rhoads ↑. Rhoads, 43 id. 239; and vice versa, Douglass v. Souter, 52 Ill. 104; but a party may prosecute error to reverse a judgment in his own favor, Thayer v. Finlay, 36 id. 262; but cannot allege errors relating to parties not before the court, Cromine v. Thorp, 42 id. 120; nor as to co-defendants who fail to appear below or to join in the appeal, Van Pelt v. Dunford, 58 id. 145; Van Valkenburg v. Trustees of Schools, 66 id. 103; Havighorst v. Lindberg, 67 id. 463; if plaintiff in error could not have recovered under proper instructions, the error will not reverse, Strohm v. Hayes, 70 id. 41. — Production of the note by plaintiff is sufficient to establish his right to sue; he need not be the beneficial owner, Hovey v. Sebring, 24 Mich, 232; title is in the holder, Breese, 288, 289; 1 Scam. 291; but he may be required to explain, 2 Gilm. 640; 2 Scam. 309; possession, evidence of ownership, 65 Ill., 310; 77 id. 143; if it appears that plaintiff is not the legal holder of the note, he can not recover thereon, Lockridge v. Nuckolls, 25 id. 178. – An agent to whom a bill is indorsed for collection may bring a suit thereon in his own name, Orr v. Lacey, 4 McLean, 243; where a note was drawn payable to A., his agent or attorney, held, that until negotiated, A., alone, could sue, Templin v. Krahn, 3 Ind. 373; matters not in whose name an action on a note payable to A. B., or bearer, is brought, Hotchkiss v. Thompson, 1 Morris (Iowa), 156; owner of a note may sue thereon in name of a third person with his consent, Patten v. Moses, 49 Me. 255. The doctrine that an indorser for collection may sue does not conflict with the doctrine of, Sutherland v. First National Bank of Ypsilanti, 31 Mich. 230; that as between banker and owner of note, indorsement passes no title. Brigham vs. Gurney. promissory note, bearing date February 17, 1844, made payable to William C. Brownell or bearer, for $65, with use, for value received, on or before the first day of January next. The suit was commenced on the 30th June, 1846. The declaration was in the common form, in which the plaintiff as bearer of the note alleges the note was transferred to him. The defendants plead the general issue, and gave notice that the note was obtained by fraud and deception, and further, that the note is not the property of the plain- [350*] tiff, and was never transferred or assigned to plaintiff. The justice rendered judgment for the defendants. From this judgment plaintiff appealed to the circuit court of Oakland county. In the circuit court the plaintiff recovered judgment. On the trial, exceptions were taken to the ruling of the court in admitting and rejecting evidence, and also to the charge of the court; and the cause comes before this court on writ of error and bill of exceptions. At the trial, defendants offered evidence tending to prove that before the plaintiff became the owner of the note upon which the action is founded, he was fully informed of the facts and circumstances which constitute the defense, and of the fraud and misrepresentations of the person to whom the note was given. The defendants also proved that, at the time the note became due, it belonged to the plaintiff's brother in New York, by the admission of the plaintiff. The defendants also proved that the note was obtained under an express warranty of the soundness of a horse for which it was given. The court charged the jury that, "if the plaintiff was a mere nominal owner, and that at the time the note became due it belonged to his brother, and his brother had notice of the defense, the defendants could avail themselves of it, and there being no proof that the brother of the plaintiff had sold the note, the jury might infer that he still owned it." To this charge the defendants excepted. We do not see any necessity for reviewing this portion of the charge, since, whether right or wrong, it supported the ground taken by defendants. Brigham vs. Gurney. A promissory note payable to bearer, or indorsed in blank, may be sue in the name of an agent who holds it for collection.2 ERROR to Oakland Circuit Court. T. J. Drake, for plaintiff in error. By the Court, WING, J. This is an action of assumps" brought by Gurney, before a justice of the peace, upon one objects to incompetent evidence, is overruled and afterwards pro the same himself, Kost v. Bender, 25 id. 515. - Party cannot assign for error that which errs in his own favor exc under peculiar circumstances, Bailey v. Campbell, 1 Scam. 47; Kitche Bratton, id. 300; the erroneous decisions must prejudice the rights of party assigning it for error, Ahrenz v. Reihle, 1 Scam. 340; Schenc v. Risley, 3 id. 483; Thorn v. Watson, 5 Gilm. 26; Kennedy v. Kenne 66 Ill. 190; Havighorst v. Lindberg, 67 id. 463; Smith v. Hickman, 68 314; Zepp v. Hager, 70 id. 223; adult defendants can not assign er: which affect only infant defendants, Tibbs v. Allen, 27 id. 119; Rhoad Rhoads, 43 id. 239; and vice versa, Douglass v. Souter, 52 Ill. 104; bt party may prosecute error to reverse a judgment in his own favor, Tha v. Finlay, 36 id. 262; but cannot allege errors relating to parties not be the court, Cromine v. Thorp, 42 id. 120; nor as to co-defendants who to appear below or to join in the appeal, Van Pelt v. Dunford, 58 id. Van Valkenburg v. Trustees of Schools, 66 id. 103; Havighorst v. L berg, 67 id. 463; if plaintiff in error could not have recovered under p er instructions, the error will not reverse, Strohm v. Hayes, 70 id. 41. ---2 Production of the note by plaintiff is sufficient to establish his r to sue; he need not be the beneficial owner, Hovey v. Sebring, 24 Mich, title is in the holder, Breese, 288, 289; 1 Scam. 291; but he may b quired to explain, 2 Gilm. 640; 2 Scam. 309; possession, evidence of ership, 65 Ill., 310; 77 id. 143; if it appears that plaintiff is not the holder of the note, he can not recover thereon, Lockridge v. Nuckoll id. 178. - An agent to whom a bill is indorsed for collection may bring a thereon in his own name, Orr v. Lacey, 4 McLean, 243; where a note drawn payable to A., his agent or attorney, held, that until negotiated alone, could sue, Templin v. Krahn, 3 Ind. 373; matters not in whose: an action on a note payable to A. B., or bearer, is brought, Hotchk Thompson, 1 Morris (Iowa), 156; owner of a note may sue thereon in of a third person with his consent, Patten v. Moses, 49 Me. 255. The do that an indorser for collection may sue does not conflict with the do of, Sutherland v. First National Bank of Ypsilanti, 31 Mich. 230; # between banker and owner of note, indorsement passes no title. The given te became due De by the am And that the .. wundness of simiem: a La court charged the fitters minal owner, and thai si the i eionged to his brother, and his brochet Fady g no proof that the brother of the pistol any necessity for reviewing this por |