Keller v. Holderman
| Citation | 11 Mich. 248 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Decision Date | 12 May 1863 |
| Parties | Jacob F. Keller v. Jacob Holderman |
Submitted on Briefs, April 17, 1863
Error to Berrien Circuit.
Action by Holderman against Keller upon a check for $ 300, drawn by Keller upon a banker at Niles, and not honored. The cause was tried without a jury, and the Circuit Judge found as facts, that the check was given for an old silver watch, worth about $ 15, which Keller took and kept till the day of trial, when he offered to return it to the plaintiff, who refused to receive it. The whole transaction was a frolic and 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 defendant when he drew the check had no money in the banker's hands, and had intended to insert a condition in the check that would prevent his being liable upon it; but as he had failed to do so, and had retained the watch, the judge held him liable, and judgment was rendered against him for the amount of the check.
Judgment reversed, with costs.
W. A. Moore, for plaintiff in error.
James Brown, for defendant in error.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. Ayres
...... Millard, 77 U.S. 152, 10 Wall. 152; First National. Bank of Washington v. Whitman, 94 U.S. 343; Starke. v. Cheeseman, 1 Ld. Raym. 538; Keller v. Holderman, 11 Mich. 248; Van Valkenburg v. Rogers, 18 Mich. 180; Cundy v. Lindsay, 38 L. T. Rep. (N. S.), 573; Hills v. Snell, 104 Mass. 173,. ......
-
Zell v. American Seating Co.
...Rev.Ed., § 21. 11 Woodard v. Walker, 192 Mich. 188, 158 N.W. 846; Church v. Case, 110 Mich. 621, 68 N.W. 424; Keller v. Holderman, 11 Mich. 248, 83 Am.Dec. 737. 12 Cf. Beaman-Marvell Co. v. Gunn, 306 Mass. 419, 28 N.E.2d 443, where the court in a suit at law enforced the earlier oral 13 See......
-
Mitzel v. Hauck
...affect their liability on implied contract. See In re Weide's Estate, 73 S.D. 448, 44 N.W.2d 208. Offers made in jest, Keller v. Holdarman, 11 Mich. 248, 83 Am.Dec. 737, or under great mental excitement or anger which are not really intended by the offeror and so known to the offeree have b......
-
Harwood v. Randolph Harwood, Inc.
...earned by Randolph Harwood as income earned by plaintiff, his wife. Authority for this affirmative defense may be found in Keller v. Holderman, 11 Mich. 248 (1863). See also Kilpatrick Bros., Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 464 F.2d 1080, 1082-1083 (CA 10, 1972), and the case......