TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Keller v. Holderman

Jacob F. Keller v. Jacob Holderman

Keller v. Holderman, 11 Mich. 248 (1863)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 12, 1863
Judges
Martin, Other
Citations
11 Mich. 2481863 Mich. LEXIS 20
Headnotes
Where defendant gave plaintiff his cheek for three hundred dollars for a silver-watch, worth fifteen, but the whole transaction was in mere frolic and banter, the one paTfcy not expecting to buy the watch nor the other to sell it, it was held that no recovery could be bad upon the check, notwithstanding-defendant had retained wthe watch, and did not offer to return it until the r trial.
Summary
Error to Berrien Circuit. Action by Holderman against Keller upon a check for $300, drawn by Keller upon a banker at Niles, and not honored. The cause was tried without a jury, and the Circuit Judge found as facts, that the check was given for an old silver watch, worth about $15, which Keller took and kept till the day' of trial, when he offered to return it 'to the plaintiff, who refused to receive it. The whole transaction was a frolic and banter — the plaintiff not expecting to sell, nor the defendant intending to buy the watch at the sum for which the check was drawn. The defendant when he drew the check had no money in the banker’s hands, and had intended to insert a' condition in the check that would prevent Ms being liable upon it; but as he had failed to do so, and had retained the watch, the Judge held him liable, and judgment was rendered against him for the amount of the check.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Martin

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Martin Ch. J.:

When the Court below found as a fact that “the whole transaction between the ■ parties was a frolic and a banter, the plaintiff not expecting to sell, nor the defendant intending to buy the watch at' the sum for which the check was drawn,” the conclusion should have been that no contract was ever made by the parties, and the finding should have been that no cause of action existed upon the-check to the plaintiff'.

The judgment is reversed, with costs of this .Court and of the Court below.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1878–1879: 11928–1929: 11930–1931: 11936–1937: 31942–1943: 11950–1951: 11958–1959: 11960–1961: 11972–1973: 11982–1983: 118782026peak 1936 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Woods v. Ayres39 Mich. 345 (1878)
  2. Zell v. American Seating Co.138 F.2d 641 (2d Cir. 1943)
  3. New York Trust Co. v. Island Oil & Transport Corporation34 F.2d 655 (2d Cir. 1929)
  4. Mitzel v. Hauck105 N.W.2d 378 (S.D. 1960)
  5. In re H. Hicks & Son82 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1936)
  6. Woods v. Fifth-Third Union Tr. Co.6 N.E.2d 987 (Ohio Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Harwood v. Randolph Harwood, Inc333 N.W.2d 609 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
  2. Kilpatrick Brothers, Inc. v. International Business MacHines Corporation464 F.2d 1080 (10th Cir. 1972)
  3. Mitzel v. Hauck105 N.W.2d 378 (S.D. 1960)
  4. Ryan v. Schott159 N.E.2d 907 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959)
  5. Weinstein v. Newman101 N.E.2d 772 (Ohio Ct. App. 1951)
  6. Zell v. American Seating Co.138 F.2d 641 (2d Cir. 1943)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list