Moore v. Foote
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. argued that the firm due-bill in Foote’s hands was at most but evidence that he had advanced to the partnership the amount thereof, and his right of recovery thereon would depend upon and be subject to an accounting between him and the firm; and his transfer of the due-bill to his wife, in payment of his antecedent indebtedness to her, would in legal effect operate only as an assignment to her of the firm indebtedness to him, and would…
Read the full summary
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. argued that the firm due-bill in Foote’s hands was at most but evidence that he had advanced to the partnership the amount thereof, and his right of recovery thereon would depend upon and be subject to an accounting between him and the firm; and his transfer of the due-bill to his wife, in payment of his antecedent indebtedness to her, would in legal effect operate only as an assignment to her of the firm indebtedness to him, and would give her no greater right as against his co-partners than he had; that in the transaction of giving Mrs. Foote the firm…
1Opinion of the Court
Cooley, Ch. J:
This case is brought to this court for review upon the following finding of facts and law:
“In the above entitled cause I find the following facts:
“1. On the 13th day of June, 1814, the defendants were partners in trade, and had been such for more than eight years prior thereto, doing a wholesale grocery business in the city of Detroit, under the name of Moore, Foote & Go. ■
“The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant Foote. On *447the date above mentioned, the defendant Foote signed and executed in the said firm name a certain promissory note, for the sum of three thousand two…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Benson v. MorganMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Osborn v. OsbornMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Smith v. Van TineMichigan Supreme Court · 1878