Keller v. Holderman

11 Mich. 248, 1863 Mich. LEXIS 20
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided May 12, 1863·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Martin Ch. J.:

When the Court below found as a fact that “the whole transaction between the ■ parties was a frolic and a banter, the plaintiff not expecting to sell, nor the defendant intending to buy the watch at' the sum for which the check was drawn,” the conclusion should have been that no contract was ever made by the parties, and the finding should have been that no cause of action existed upon the-check to the plaintiff'.

The judgment is reversed, with costs of this .Court and of the Court below.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Keller v. Holderman, 11 Mich. 248, 1863 Mich. LEXIS 20 (Mich. 1863).

11 Mich. 248 (Keller v. Holderman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harwood v. Randolph Harwood, Inc
333 N.W.2d 609 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1983)
Mitzel v. Hauck
105 N.W.2d 378 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1960)
Ryan v. Schott
159 N.E.2d 907 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1959)
Weinstein v. Newman
101 N.E.2d 772 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1951)
Zell v. American Seating Co.
138 F.2d 641 (Second Circuit, 1943)
Woods v. Fifth-Third Union Tr. Co.
6 N.E.2d 987 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1936)
In Re H. Hicks & Son
82 F.2d 277 (Second Circuit, 1936)
Godoy v. George Alexander & Sons, Inc.
82 F.2d 277 (Second Circuit, 1936)
Chiles v. Good
41 S.W.2d 738 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Woods v. Ayres
39 Mich. 345 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)