222 N.W. 185 | Mich. | 1928
This is another so-called foreign exchange case, in which verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff, in June, 1917, went to defendant bank and paid to it $990 to have remittance for deposit of 4,000 rubles in a bank in Moscow. He was given a remitter's receipt like that set forth in Romanuick v. State Bank,
If the jury on another trial shall find that plaintiff did sign, the verdict will be for defendant. If it be found that plaintiff did not sign, the jury will then determine whether the parol agreement was in fact made. If the agreement be found to have been made, there will be another question of fact, whether the time of performance of the claimed agreement was by later agreements postponed from time to time. If there were postponements, as claimed here by plaintiff, the action is not barred by the statute of limitations. If there were no postponements, as *559 contended by defendant, the action, on this record, would be barred.
Reversed. New trial granted. Costs to abide result.
FEAD, C.J., and NORTH, FELLOWS, WIEST, McDONALD, POTTER, and SHARPE, JJ., concurred.