Boyd v. Corbitt

Michigan Supreme Court

Boyd v. Corbitt

37 Mich. 52, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 195

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 37 Mich. 52 (Boyd v. Corbitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyd v. Corbitt, 37 Mich. 52, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 195 (Mich. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Per 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 [53]*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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per 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 [53]*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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Mich. 52, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-corbitt-mich-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack