Romanuick v. Highland Park State Bank

(after stating the facts). The questions discussed under these heads are substantially identical with the questions urged in Skuratowicz v. Highland Park State Bank, 234 Mich. 356, and defendant’s brief in this case follows very closely the brief in that case. We there held that inasmuch as the paper was but a receipt, parol proof was admissible to show the agreement between the parties, and distinguished the case from Karnov v. Goldman, 229 Mich. 551, in which case the parties had reduced their agreement to writing, and we there held that the case was controlled by Cechanowicz v. Highland…