Lansing National Bank v. Coleman
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ingham; Wisner, J., presiding. Assumpsit by. the Lansing National Bank against Merritt L. Coleman for moneys had and received. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Defendant admits his indebtedness to plaintiff in the sum of $600, for the recovery of which this suit is brought. He claims a set-off of $690, due him for declared dividends as a stockholder of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error to Ingham; Wisner, J., presiding. Assumpsit by. the Lansing National Bank against Merritt L. Coleman for moneys had and received. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Defendant admits his indebtedness to plaintiff in the sum of $600, for the recovery of which this suit is brought. He claims a set-off of $690, due him for declared dividends as a stockholder of the plaintiff. To this defense plaintiff replies by interposing the written agreement of the defendant that any dividends due him should be paid as therein provided. To this agreement he replies that it was…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, C. J.
(after stating the facts). 1. A settlement was made between the bank and the defendant. What was settled, and what was the consideration for the settlement? The defendant had taken' a note for $2,000, placed it among the assets of the bank, and had credited himself upon the books with $2,000 as loaned upon 'this note. In fact no loan was made, no cash paid out, no note had ever existed of which the one taken could be a duplicate. There was nothing upon the books of the bank to indicate the existence of any such note, or that Bement & Sons had ever been indebted to the bank upon such a note.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Atwood v. Mayor of Sault Ste. MarieMichigan Supreme Court · 1905