Louwaert v. D. Graff & Sons, 240 N.W. 44 (Mich. 1932). · Go Syfert
Louwaert v. D. Graff & Sons, 240 N.W. 44 (Mich. 1932). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jennese Massengale v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (ca6, 2022-08-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Jennese Massengale v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
6th Cir. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
after assignment, the assignor loses all control over the chose, and cannot bind the assignee, by estoppel or otherwise.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Mecosta County Medical Center v. Metropolitan Group Property
Mich. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
after assignment, the assignor loses all control over the chose in action and cannot bind the assignee, by estoppel or otherwise.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Mecosta County Medical Center v. Metropolitan Group Property
Mich. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
after assignment, the assignor loses all control over the chose in action and cannot bind the assignee, by estoppel or otherwise.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Mecosta County Medical Center v. Metropolitan Group Property
Mich. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
after assignment, the assignor loses all control over the chose in action and cannot bind the assignee, by estoppel or otherwise.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Mecosta County Medical Center v. Metropolitan Group Property
Mich. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
after assignment, the assignor loses all control over the chose in action and cannot bind the assignee, by estoppel or otherwise.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Mecosta County Medical Center v. Metropolitan Group Property
Mich. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
after assignment, the assignor loses all control over the chose in action and cannot bind the assignee, by estoppel or otherwise.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Mecosta County Medical Center v. Metropolitan Group Property
Mich. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
after assignment, the assignor loses all control over the chose in action and cannot bind the assignee, by estoppel or otherwise.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Mecosta County Medical Center v. Metropolitan Group Property
Mich. Ct. App. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the rule that an assignee of a nonnegotiable chose takes subject to defenses means, of course, defenses existing at the time of the assignment. after assignment, the assignor loses all control over the chose, and cannot bind the assignee, by estoppel or otherwise.
cited Cited "see" C-Spine Orthopedics Pllc v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company
Mich. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Louwaert
v.
D. Graff & Sons
Docket No. 85, Calendar No. 35,909..
Michigan Supreme Court.
Jan 4, 1932.
240 N.W. 44
1932 Mich. LEXIS 703
Jackson, Fitzgerald Dalm , for plaintiff. Kerr, Lacey Scroggie , for defendants.
Fead, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, Butzel.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 7 cases
Pinpoint authority: #28,822 of 633,719
Citer courts: Michigan Supreme Court (6) · Michigan Court of Appeals (1)
Fead, J.

October 23, 1926, plaintiff, while in the employ of D. Graff & Sons, sustained an acid burn on the foot which produced an ulcer not yet healed. Compensation was paid under agreement to October 1, 1927, when final settlement receipt was filed. Plaintiff then returned to work for defendant and continued to about October 1, 1929, when she was discharged. March 5, 1931, she filed claim for fur[*388] tlier compensation. The deputy commissioner made allowance for total disability from October 1, 1929, and, on appeal of defendants, the award was modified by the board to allow compensation from March 5, 1931, the date of filing claim. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff, her mother and her attending physician were the only witnesses at the hearing and their testimony was undisputed. Plaintiff claimed she was unable to work even before she was discharged and has been disabled continuously since. The doctor and the mother stated no time prior to hearing when she was so disabled. Plaintiff’s own testimony was vague, uncertain, unsatisfactory, and needed corroboration, particularly in view of the facts that she had given the employer no notice of renewed disability and made no claim for compensation for a long time. The board, as trier of the facts, was at liberty to find that, while disability was shown, its commencement was not fairly proved, and that compensation should be allowed from the date of filing the petition for want of proper showing of a different date. While ordinarily undisputed evidence must be taken as true, the board is not required to accept it when, viewed reasonably, it would require the board to speculate as to a fact. The finding is conclusive and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.