Rickle v. Dow
| Decision Date | 18 June 1878 |
| Citation | 39 Mich. 91 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frederick Rickle v. Benjamin F. Dow, Edward P. Burrall et al |
Submitted June 12, 1878
Appeal from Barry.
Injunction to restrain the collection of a judgment. Complainant alleges tat having agreed to take an interest in a threshing machine purchased by one Brakefield from the firm of B. F. Dow & Co., he gave his note for $ 160 to be paid on the original purchase notes which Brakefield had given to Burrall as their agent. He delivered the note to Burrall and gave him a mortgage to secure it, but as the agreement between himself and Brakefield was afterwards rescinded, Brakefield undertook to procure a settlement of the note and mortgage and paid Burrall $ 115.55 for which Burrall gave him a receipt. B. F Dow & Co. continued, notwithstanding this payment, to hold the note and mortgage, and afterwards brought suit upon the note and took judgment by default for the whole amount complainant having relied on Burrall's assurances that he would explain the matter to them and have the suit withdrawn. Complainant asks that if it shall be made to appear that the note and mortgage were given in part payment and as collateral security for the payment by Brakefield of the latter's own note for $ 300 to B. F. Dow & Co., and that Brakefield had himself paid the $ 300 note, B. F. Dow & Co. may be directed to surrender the note and discharge the mortgage. The bill asks also that the judgment be declared fraudulent and void and set aside, and that all moneys which complainant had paid on the execution issued on said judgment in the mistaken belief that Brakefield had not paid his note in full, may be refunded. The bill was dismissed in the court below and complainant appeals.
Decree of the court dismissing the bill reversed and a decree rendered in accordance with the prayer of complaintant's bill, with costs of both courts.
C. G Holbrook for complainant.
Sweezey & Knappen for defendants B. F. Dow & Co.
There is abundant evidence in this case, in the letters and course of dealings of the parties, to establish the fact that Burrall was the recognized agent of B. F. Dow & Co. This being so, Dow & Co. are bound by his acts and cannot now repudiate them. The note in question was given to Burrall as their agent. It was payable upon its face to the order of B F. Dow & Co., and was transmitted to and received by them. Under such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillen v. Wakefield State Bank
...grant complete relief. Whipple v. Farrar, 3 Mich. 436, 64 Am. Dec. 99;Jones v. Smith, 22 Mich. 360;Miller v. Stepper, 32 Mich. 194;Rickle v. Dow, 39 Mich. 91;Chase v. Boughton, 93 Mich. 285, 54 N. W. 44;Brown v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge, 75 Mich. 274, 42 N. W. 827,5 L. R. A. 226, 13 Am. St. ......
-
Stephenson v. Golden
...on any well-settled ground ordinarily retain it to grant complete relief. Whipple v. Farrar, 3 Mich. 436, 64 Am.Dec. 99;Rickle v. Dow, 39 Mich. 91;Chase v. Boughton, 93 Mich. 285, 54 N.W. 44;Culver v. Avery, 161 Mich. 322, 126 N.W. 439;Burgess v. Jackson Circuit Judge, 249 Mich. 558, 229 N.......
-
Lamberton v. Pawloski
...v. Farrar, 3 Mich. 436, 64 Am. Dec. 99;Wales v. Newbould, 9 Mich. 45;Jones v. Smith, 22 Mich. 360;Miller v. Stepper, 32 Mich. 194;Rickle v. Dow, 39 Mich. 91;Chase v. Broughton, 93 Mich. 285, 54 N. W. 44;Wallace v. Wallace, 63 Mich. 326, 29 N. W. 841;Brown v. Kalamazoo C. J., 75 Mich. 274, 4......
-
Kenton Ins. Co. of Kentucky v. McClellan
...the disability of coverture. But inasmuch as plaintiff here is the original payee it is not a bona fide holder. [6 N.W. 89]Rickle v. Dow, 39 Mich. 91. The evidence showed, without contradiction, that this note was given by defendant to her son, August Kneuzel, to use as security for a debt ......