Bloomer v. Dau
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Kent; Grove, J. Bill by Reuben Bloomer against Magnus Dau, Mary C. Dau, and Jacob Mann to foreclose a mortgage. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Bill to foreclose a mortgage for $375, dated December 4, 1888, due December 4, 1893, given to one Coles A. Bloomer, the assignor of complainant. Coles A. Bloomer and complainant were brothers, and had.been in partnership.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Kent; Grove, J. Bill by Reuben Bloomer against Magnus Dau, Mary C. Dau, and Jacob Mann to foreclose a mortgage. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Bill to foreclose a mortgage for $375, dated December 4, 1888, due December 4, 1893, given to one Coles A. Bloomer, the assignor of complainant. Coles A. Bloomer and complainant were brothers, and had.been in partnership. Upon the dissolution of the partnership and the division of the property, the note and mortgage, with other securities, were assigned to complainant. One Cheney had a bank at Sparta. Bloomer Bros,…
1DissentMoore, J.
[dissenting). I do not reach the same conclusion as Justice Grant. I agree with him that Mr. Cheney was the general agent of the complainant for the collection of this and other notes and mortgages. The record also discloses that Mr. Dau knew of that fact, for he had paid him interest on the mortgage before he paid the principal. The note was payable at the bank of Mr. *528Cheney. The principal of the mortgage and the balance of the interest were paid to Mr. Cheney the 5th day of December. It is not disputed that Mr. Dau had not received the letter Mr. Bloomer sent him at this time. The fact that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wilson v. La TourMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Ziegan v. StrickerMichigan Supreme Court · 1896