Joel Stockard & Co. v. Reis

Michigan Supreme Court

Joel Stockard & Co. v. Reis

248 N.W. 580, 263 Mich. 155, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1122

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 16, 1933

DocketDocket No. 134, Calendar No. 37,194.

StatusPublished

This text of 248 N.W. 580 (Joel Stockard & Co. v. Reis) 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

Joel Stockard & Co. v. Reis, 248 N.W. 580, 263 Mich. 155, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1122 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

Defendant had dealings with plaintiff, a broker, at the conclusion of which there was due defendant a sum of money, which did not include an item of $7,600, a check for which defendant had mailed but which check had not cleared. Being assured that the check was good and would be paid, plaintiff added the amount to the sum due and gave *156 its check for $11,961.05 to defendant, which he cashed. Defendant then stopped payment of his check for $7,600 and to recover the sum this action in assumpsit was commenced.

Plaintiff had directed verdict and judgment for the amount. Defendant has appealed.

A contention to be noticed is that the dealings were unlawful, gambling contracts, and that therefore there can be no recovery. The matter before us, even if it grew out of illegal transactions, is not connected therewith, but is for a wholly new consideration, and therefore collection may be enforced. The defense is without merit. Smith v. Barstow, 2 Doug. 155.

Affirmed.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Clark, J.

Defendant had dealings with plaintiff, a broker, at the conclusion of which there was due defendant a sum of money, which did not include an item of $7,600, a check for which defendant had mailed but which check had not cleared. Being assured that the check was good and would be paid, plaintiff added the amount to the sum due and gave *156 its check for $11,961.05 to defendant, which he cashed. Defendant then stopped payment of his check for $7,600 and to recover the sum this action in assumpsit was commenced.

Plaintiff had directed verdict and judgment for the amount. Defendant has appealed.

A contention to be noticed is that the dealings were unlawful, gambling contracts, and that therefore there can be no recovery. The matter before us, even if it grew out of illegal transactions, is not connected therewith, but is for a wholly new consideration, and therefore collection may be enforced. The defense is without merit. Smith v. Barstow, 2 Doug. 155.

Affirmed.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.W. 580, 263 Mich. 155, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joel-stockard-co-v-reis-mich-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack