Rickle v. Dow
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Barry. Injunction to restrain the collection of a judgment. Complainant alleges that having agreed to take an interest iñ a threshing machine purchased by one Brakefield from the firm of B. F. Dow & Co., he gave his note for $160 to be paid on the original purchase notes which Brakefield had given to Burrall as their agent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Barry. Injunction to restrain the collection of a judgment. Complainant alleges that having agreed to take an interest iñ a threshing machine purchased by one Brakefield from the firm of B. F. Dow & Co., he gave his note for $160 to be paid on the original purchase notes which Brakefield had given to Burrall as their agent. He delivered the note to Burrall and gave him a mortgage to secure it, but as the agreement between himself and Brakefield was afterwards rescinded, Brakefield undertook to procure a settlement of the note and mortgage and paid Burrall $115.55 for which Burrall…
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.
There is abundant evidence in this •case,' in the letters and course of dealings of the parties, to establish the fact that Burrall was the recognized agent of B. F. Dow & Co. This being so, Dow & Co. are bound by his acts and cannot now repudiate them. ‘The note in question was given to Burrall as their agent. It was payable upon its face to the order of B. F. Dow & Co., and was transmitted to and received by them. Under such circumstances it is somewhat difficult to discover upon what theory they can be considered •as bona fide purchasers thereof. There are still other reasons appearing…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Stephenson v. GoldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Creek v. LaskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Gillen v. Wakefield State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Kenton Insurance v. McClellanMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Koontz v. Bay Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.