Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Mich. 278

Hannahs v. Sheldon

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1870

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1870-04-26

This was an action of assumpsit brought hy James W. Sheldon against Marvin Hannahs and George Hannahs, upon a certificate of deposit of which the following is a copy: No. 1223 — State or Michigan, Hannahs’ Exchange Bank, Albion, Eeb. 2d, 1859. Mrs. Jennett Failing has deposited in this Bank three hundred and four 75-100 dollars, subject to the order of herself on return of this certificate, in current bank notes, interest ten per cent. M* Hannahs & Son. $304 75-100.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-04-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1939

6 state decisions

201870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cooley, J.

¶1Sheldon sued the Hannahs upon a certificate of deposit issued by them to Mrs. J. Failing, by which they promised to pay to her order three hundred and four 75-100 dollars in current bank notes. The certificate bore date February 2, 1859, and Sheldon claimed title thereto as assignee. The transfer of the same by Mrs..Failing was proved by her blank endorsement thereon. She was deceased at the time of the trial, and the defendants offered to show that from the date of the certificate to the time of her decease she was insane and incapable of transacting business. The plaintiff objected to the proposed evidence and the Court excluded it.

¶2No ground was suggested on the argument upon which this ruling could be sustained. If Mrs. Failing was insane she could have made no valid assignment of the certificate, and the title thereto would have been in her personal representatives after her decease and not in Mr. Sheldon. It is probable that the Court misapprehended the precise force of the offer made, but upon the record as presented to us, *280we have uo alternative but to reverse the judgment. It will be reversed accordingly, with costs of this Court, and a new trial ordered.

Campbell, Ch. J. and Christiancy, J. concurred.Graves, J. did not sit in this case.
/20/mich/278 · .json · Public domain