Marskey v. Turner
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Saginaw. (Edget, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. The plaintiff cannot recover unless he shows that the company-had parted with its interest by indorsement; citing Meacher v. Fort, 3 Hill (N. C.), 227; and plaintiff must prove the indorse-' ment and the authority to indorse; citing Spicer v. Smith, 23 Mich. 96. 2. The first indorsement is wholly ineffectual to enable plaintiff. to recover.
Read the full summary
Error to Saginaw. (Edget, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. The plaintiff cannot recover unless he shows that the company-had parted with its interest by indorsement; citing Meacher v. Fort, 3 Hill (N. C.), 227; and plaintiff must prove the indorse-' ment and the authority to indorse; citing Spicer v. Smith, 23 Mich. 96. 2. The first indorsement is wholly ineffectual to enable plaintiff. to recover. An agent cannot indorse his principal’s name so as to pass title to himself, such an act being against public policy; citing Englehart v. Plow Co., 21…
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
Plaintiff sued in assumpsit, in justice’s court, upon the following note:
“71.31. Saginaw, Mich., October 21, 1882.
“Thirty days after date I promise to pay to the order of the Michigan Mutual Life Insurance Company seventy-one and 31-100 dollars, at the Citizens’ National Bank of Saginaw, Mich., value received, with interest after maturity at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum.
“Charles Turner.”
On the back of the note is the following indorsement:
“Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co.
“Charles F. Marsket, Agt.”
And below is a second indorsement as follows:
“Mich. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
“By H. F. Frede, Asst.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sackett v. MontgomeryNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Union Central Life Insurance v. ZihlmanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1910