McAllister v. Engle
| Decision Date | 20 December 1883 |
| Citation | 52 Mich. 56,17 N.W. 694 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | McALLISTER v. ENGLE and others. |
A borrower went to a loan agent of an insurance company for money, but afterwards negotiated the loan himself, dealing with the company personally and by letter. The money went to him through the hands of the loan agent, who insisted on retaining part of it for his services, and on the borrower giving a receipt showing a settlement in full. Held, that in a suit by the borrower against the loan agent for the amount withheld, it was proper to introduce the letters and to show what passed between the parties when the receipt was extorted.
Error to Huron.
Winsor & Snover, for plaintiff.
Engle & Engle, for defendants and appellants.
The plaintiff brought his suit in assumpsit, upon the common counts, for $225, and interest thereon, and filed a bill of particulars. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and gave notice thereunder that the sum claimed by plaintiff was money belonging to them for services and expenses rendered and incurred by them in procuring a loan of $3,000 for plaintiff from the Michigan Mutual-Life Insurance Company, at Detroit, and that they held plaintiff's receipt for the money on a settlement made of the claim.
No question is made upon the pleadings. It appears from the record that the defendants were the attorneys for the company in Huron county, and were authorized to negotiate loans for the company in that county, and did what business was necessary to be done for the company in making papers examining titles, making abstracts, and perfecting securities. Some time previous to the month of September 1880, the plaintiff desired to effect a loan upon real estate securities of $3,000, and called at the office of defendants to learn their rates, and was informed that they would be 9 1/2 per cent., and plaintiff said he would take the money of the defendants if he could do no better. Plaintiff testified that at this time he did not know that the defendants were loaning money for the company, or that such company was in existence.
The evidence tends further to show that sometime after this the plaintiff went to Detroit for the purpose of obtaining the money, and while there he mentioned the object of his visit to some party who was acquainted with said insurance company, and he spoke to the cashier, who introduced the plaintiff to Mr. Liggett, secretary of the company. The plaintiff had with him an abstract of the property he wished to mortgage as security for the loan, and showed it to Mr. Liggett, who informed him the company would let him have the money at 8 per cent. interest, payable semi-annually; that there were no commissions to pay, but the company would require an abstract certified to by defendant for which plaintiff would have to pay the usual professional fees. Liggett at the same time gave plaintiff a blank application for the loan, with an appraisal of the security attached. Plaintiff returned home, filled out the application, and had the necessary appraisal made and an abstract by one of the defendants, and returned them to Mr Liggett at Detroit. Plaintiff offered to pay Engle for signing the abstract, but was informed by him that he charged nothing for that service. When the application was perfected and the money ready, Liggett placed the check for the money in Engle's hands at the company's office at Detroit, to be delivered to the plaintiff, and the mortgage to be recorded when signed. The next day after the plaintiff was informed of these facts, Mr. Drury, one of the defendants, went to the plaintiff's place and had the mortgage executed, and the check indorsed to George S. Engle, saying to plaintiff that it was the company's way of doing business, and appointed a day for plaintiff to go to Bad Axe, where the defendants had one of their offices, and receive his money. He took the notes and mortgages and the indorsed check away with him. On the day appointed plaintiff went to Bad Axe and called on defendants for his money. They then offered to him $2,775, and claimed to retain the remaining $225 for their commissions in procuring the money. The defendants further claimed...
To continue reading
Request your trial