Boyd v. Corbitt
Michigan Supreme Court
Case made from Kent. Assumpsit on a promissory note payable to the order of G. W. Janes and D. E. Corbitt, and indorsed in blank by them before maturity. Having been transferred, it was again indorsed in blank by its owner, J. W. Martin, and Boyd, the collecting agent, brought suit on it in his own name. Plaintiff recovered and defendant excepted to the rulings and judgment.
1Per curiam
The only question in this case is, whether a collection agent who holds for collection a note payable-to order and which has been indorsed in blank by the owner *53for the purposes of collection, can bring suit in his own name. "We have no doubt he may do so. The indorsement by the owner must be understood as authority for this proceeding; it passes the legal title for the purposes of collection, and this must include any necessary suit.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Falconio v. LarsenOregon Supreme Court · 1897
- Village of Kent v. DanaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1900
- Freeman v. Exchange BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Roberts v. SnowNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
- Moore v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.