Markle v. Steele

2 Blackf. 344, 1830 Ind. LEXIS 21
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 17, 1830
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Blackf. 344 (Markle v. Steele) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Markle v. Steele, 2 Blackf. 344, 1830 Ind. LEXIS 21 (Ind. 1830).

Opinion

STEELE, resident in another state, forwarded to Markle in Indiana, who was not an attorney at law, a note against Hotchkiss for 200 dollars, to be collected. Markle placed the note in the hands of an attorney at law for collection. The attorney collected the money, and left the country without paying it over to Markle. Held, that Steele could not, under these circumstances, sustain an áctjon for money had and received against Markle. Held, also, that if Markle could be made liable for the money in any form of action, it must be on one founded on his [345]*345having acted fraudulently or imprudently in entrusting the note to the attorney; or on his having failed to use proper means to obtain the money from the attorney after its collection. Vide Beardsley v. Root, 11 Johns. R. 464.—Duncan v. Littell, 2 Bibb, 424.—Lucket v. Bohannon, 3 Bibb, 378.—Duncan v. Skipwith, 2 Camp. 68.—Nightingal v. Devisme, 5 Burr. 2589.

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

Related

Lucket v. Bohannon
6 Ky. 378 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1814)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Blackf. 344, 1830 Ind. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markle-v-steele-ind-1830.