History
  • No items yet
midpage
Boyd v. Corbitt
37 Mich. 52
Mich.
1877
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The only question in this case is, whether a collection agent who holds for collection a note payable-to order and which has been indorsed in blank by the owner *53for the purposes of collection, can bring suit in his own name. "We have no doubt he may do so. The indorsement by the owner must be understood as authority for this proceeding; it passes the legal title for the purposes of collection, and this must include any necessary suit.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Boyd v. Corbitt
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 12, 1877
Citation: 37 Mich. 52
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.