Boyd v. Corbitt, 37 Mich. 52

Boyd v. Corbitt

37 Mich. 52 | Mich. | 1877

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.