Kent v. May

Michigan Supreme Court

Kent v. May

13 Mich. 38, 1864 Mich. LEXIS 53

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 27, 1864

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 Mich. 38 (Kent v. May) 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

Kent v. May, 13 Mich. 38, 1864 Mich. LEXIS 53 (Mich. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin Ch. J.

The only question in this case is of the construction of a contract. In tiffs we think the Circuit Judge was correct. The collaterals referred to in the agreement between May and the plaintiffs were very evidently the endorsed notes of Clapp and Son, for they are specified as such, while the individual note of May is not, but is treated as distinct from such collaterals, and his agreement to pay it at maturity is made • entirely [40]*40independent of the payment of the Clapp notes. I think it too obvious to need argument that the parties to the contract intended to separate the May note from what are mentioned in it as notes “ assig’ned as collateral security.” In fact the May note was not an “ assigned ” note, but an original note of the principal debtor for the balance over the amount of the assigned paper.

The judgment is affirmed.

Campbell J. concurred.

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

Martin Ch. J.

The only question in this case is of the construction of a contract. In tiffs we think the Circuit Judge was correct. The collaterals referred to in the agreement between May and the plaintiffs were very evidently the endorsed notes of Clapp and Son, for they are specified as such, while the individual note of May is not, but is treated as distinct from such collaterals, and his agreement to pay it at maturity is made • entirely [40]*40independent of the payment of the Clapp notes. I think it too obvious to need argument that the parties to the contract intended to separate the May note from what are mentioned in it as notes “ assig’ned as collateral security.” In fact the May note was not an “ assigned ” note, but an original note of the principal debtor for the balance over the amount of the assigned paper.

The judgment is affirmed.

Campbell J. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Mich. 38, 1864 Mich. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-may-mich-1864.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack