Case ID: mich_129/html/0526-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grant, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NATIONAL WALL PAPER CO. v. AMES.
    Collection Agent — Loss of Claim.
    No error being discovered, a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount of a claim sent to defendant for collection, and lost through his mismanagement of the business, was affirmed.
    Error to Emmet; Shepherd, J.
    Submitted January 10, 1902.
    Decided March 4, 1902.
    
      Assumpsit by the National Wall Paper Company against Robert C. Ames for a breach of duty as collection agent. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Halstead & Halstead, for appellant.
    
      Glare J. Le Boy, for appellee.
   Grant, J.

Plaintiff, a New York ^corporation, sent a claim for collection against one Mrs. Cole to Mr. M. W. George, an attorney at law at Petoskey, Mich. The defendant, a# real-estate and collection agent, had an office with Mr. George. George was absent on account of sickness. Defendant wrote plaintiff that he would take the claim, put it in judgment, and levy upon real estate mortgaged for about half its value. Plaintiff sent defendant $25 to pay expenses of suit, etc. Defendant brought suit, obtained judgment, levied upon the lots, and bid them in in plaintiff’s name. The mortgages were foreclosed, the defendant became the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, and the title to plaintiff upon the execution sale was cut off. Plaintiff instituted this suit upon the theory that the defendant had mismanaged the business, in consequence of which its claim was lost and plaintiff damaged. The case was submitted to the jury upon a fair statement of the theory of each party and a correct statement of the law applicable thereto. Errors are assigned upon the admission of testimony and the charge of the court. We find no error in the record. The questions of law raised are familiar to the profession, and a discussion of them would be of no benefit. It is undoubtedly just to the defendant to say that, under his construction of the letters written by the plaintiff to him, no bad faith is attributable to him.

Judgment affirmed.

Hooker, C. J., Moore and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.