Bingham v. Montcalm Cnty., 57.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 57.,57. |
| Citation | 251 Mich. 651,232 N.W. 348 |
| Parties | BINGHAM v. MONTCALM COUNTY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montcalm County; Royal A. Hawley, Circuit Judge.
Action by Margaret Bingham against the County of Montcalm. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals on case made.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Rarden & Rarden, of Greenville, for appellant.
D. Hale Brake, of Stanton, for appellee.
This cause is here on case made to review the judgment of the circuit court in Montcalm county denying the right of the plaintiff to a return of a certificate of deposit which she had given as cash bail on behalf of the defendant in People v. Beck. On February 8, 1928, complaint was made before John W. Nickerson, a justice of the peace in Montcalm county, charging Morris Beck with the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. Arrest was made on the warrant issued. On arraignment, the defendant demanded an examination, after which he was held to appear in the circuit court with bail fixed at $500. He signed a written recognizance in which it was recited that he had deposited with the justice $500 as cash bail. The $500 consisted of a certificate of deposit on the Greenville State Bank belonging to and indorsed by the plaintiff, Margaret Bingham. On the day set for trial in the circuit court, Beck did not appear. His bail was estreated and an order entered directing the justice of the peace to deliver the certificate to the county treasurer to be by him credited to the general fund of the county. On application to the board of supervisors, the plaintiff was denied the right to a return of the money represented by the certificate. She appealed to the circuit court. At the conclusion of the trial, findings of fact and of law were filed on which judgment was entered against the plaintiff.
The principal claim is that the justice of the peace was without authority to accept a bank certificate of deposit in lieu of cash bail; that in accepting it he became a trustee of the certificate and its proceeds for the use and benefit of the plaintiff.
The statute known as the Code of Criminal Procedure, Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, authorizes the deposit of cash in lieu of bail. As stated by the trial court, the term ‘cash’ is a term of broad and not restricted import. A certificate of deposit properly indorsed in blank, payable on presentation, is readily converted into cash and is commonly treated as such in business transactions. In Glines v. Bank, 132 Mich. 638, 94 N. W. 195, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Evans
...referred to the deposit of cash, checks, or securities under this statute as the posting of both "cash bail," Bingham v. Montcalm Co., 251 Mich. 651, 652, 232 N.W. 348 (1930), and "cash bond," People v. Faculak, 325 Mich. 56, 59, 37 N.W.2d 709 (1949). In People v. Benmore, 298 Mich. 701, 70......
-
Perry v. West, No. 6077
...Thompson v. Thompson, 149 Tex. 632, 236 S.W.2d 779, Flower v. Dort, 260 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.) bail statute, Bingham v. Montcalm County, 251 Mich. 651, 232 N.W. 348 or private contract or agreement, West v. Ankney, 134 N.E.2d 185 (Ct.Com.Pleas Ohio), Greenberg v. Alter Company, 255 Io......
- Lafferty v. Cole, 39
-
Wolfe v. A. E. Kusterer & Co.
...cash in its ordinary sense-as currency. Legally certificates of deposit are in some instances treated as cash. Bingham v. County of Montcalm, 251 Mich. 651, 232 N. W. 348 (where deposit with a justice of the peace of a certificate of deposit properly indorsed was held to satisfy the statuto......