Catlin v. Birchard
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Circuit. ■ The action was assumpsit for money had and received* to which defendant pleaded the general issue. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell J.:
Birchard sued Catlin for money had and received — the claim arising from a note of Wm. F. Smith, payable to Catlin, and claimed to have been for Birchard’s benefit. The testimony, so far as it bears upon the legal questions raised, tends to show that Birchard had been held as surety for a firm known as Smith, Dwight & Co., (composed of Rollin C. Smith, Alfred A. Dwight, and Wm. F. Smith,) and his property had been sold to pay a debt known as the Birmingham Bank debt. ,The property of this firm,' or most of it, had been conveyed to Wm. A. Howard, and by him to Wm. Warner and Albert…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Atkinson v. ScottMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Bowker v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Clark v. First National BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Frank v. Morley's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Maltz v. FletcherMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.