Catlin v. Birchard
| Decision Date | 28 January 1865 |
| Citation | 13 Mich. 110 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Albert L. Catlin v. Matthew W. Birchard |
Heard October 11, 1864
Error to Wayne circuit.
The action was assumpsit for money had and received, to which defendant pleaded the general issue.
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
G. V N. Lothrop, and D. C. Holbrook, for plaintiff in error.
A. B Maynard, and Jerome & Swift, for defendant in error.
Birchard sued Catlin for money had and received, the claim arising from a note of Wm. F. Smith, payable to Catlin, and claimed to have been for Birchard's benefit. The testimony, so far as it bears upon the legal questions raised, tends to show that Birchard had been held as surety for a firm known as Smith, D wight & Co. (composed of Rollin C. Smith, Alfred A. Dwight, and Wm. F. Smith), and his property had been sold to pay a debt known as the Birmingham Bank debt. The property of this firm, or most of it, had been conveyed to Wm. A. Howard, and by him to Wm. Warner and Albert L. Catlin, who were to manage it, and pay off certain debts and make other arrangements unnecessary now to refer to. Wm. F. Smith proposed to purchase certain of this property, and the terms were to be agreed upon by Warner, Catlin and Howard. One of the terms proposed was, that he should pay to Smith and Dwight (R. C. Smith and Alfred A. Dwight) four thousand dollars and interest, being one-third of the Birmingham debt, for which Birchard's property had been sold. Wm. A. Howard consented to these terms, and authorized them to be varied as Rollin C. Smith, should determine. Warner and Catlin, with the consent of R. C. Smith, finally made an arrangement, in which no mention was made of the Birmingham or Birchard debt, specifically; but a note was given for four thousand dollars, and interest, payable to Catlin, and the object and consideration of it were not referred to in the instrument. It is now claimed by Birchard, that this note was really understood, and intended to be for his benefit, and that Catlin was merely an agent, or trustee in the matter. He was permitted to show this, and to recover upon proof of it, and the exceptions taken, on Catlin's behalf, are based upon the hypothesis that the case did not admit of such proofs or holdings.
There is really but one question in the case, and that is, whether parol evidence is admissible to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dulaney v. Burke
...Goodman, 14 Neb. 585, 16 N.W. 834; Maltz v. Fletcher, 52 Mich. 484, 18 N.W. 228; Colman v. Post, 10 Mich. 422, 82 Am. Dec. 49; Catlin v. Birchard, 13 Mich. 110; Bowker Johnson, 17 Mich. 46; Clarke v. Tappin, 32 Conn. 66; Dicken v. Morgan, 54 Iowa 684, 7 N.W. 145.) Albert Hagan and Frank Gan......
-
Hubbard v. United States Mortgage Co.
...Pick. 1; Cook v. Basley, 123 Mass. 396; Rogers v. Dashiell, 8 Allen, 343; Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. 164; Crooker v. Rogers, 58 Me. 339; Catlin v. Birchard, 13 Mich. 110; Eddy v. Smith, 13 Wend. 488; Taylor v. Turner, 87 Ill. 296. When courts of law have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of equit......
-
Hicks v. Steel
...cases cited by counsel: Beardslee v. Horton, 3 Mich. 560, 562; Little v. Derby, 7 Mich. 325; Moore v. Mandlebaum, 8 Mich. 433; Catlin v. Birchard, 13 Mich. 110; Blackwood v. Brown, 34 Mich. 4; Atkinson Scott, 36 Mich. 18. The bank might then have recovered in such an action, and we see no r......
-
Bowker v. Johnson
...against all but bona fide holders, whether it be to create a special interest, a defeasance, or any other similar equity. See Catlin v. Birchard, 13 Mich. 110. This doctrine been applied in various ways. It has been allowed to convert an absolute deed into a mortgage: Wadsworth v. Loranger,......