Boyd v. Corbitt
37 Mich. 52, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 195
Opinion
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] for 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
Boyd v. Corbitt, 37 Mich. 52, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 195 (Mich. 1877).
37 Mich. 52 (Boyd v. Corbitt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Battersbee v. Calkins
87 N.W. 760 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
Village of Kent v. Dana
100 F. 56 (Sixth Circuit, 1900)
Deweese v. Muff
42 L.R.A. 789 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Falconio v. Larsen
37 L.R.A. 254 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
Seybold v. Grand Forks National Bank
67 N.W. 682 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Freeman v. Exchange Bank
13 S.E. 160 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1891)
Roberts v. Snow
43 N.W. 241 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1889)
Moore v. Hall
11 N.W. 844 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1882)
Knapp v. Lee
3 N.W. 244 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1879)