Legal Opinion · Dissent
Cochran v. Staman
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided June 3, 1918No. Docket No. 84PublishedCited by 9 opinions
Error to Wayne; Hally, J. Assumpsit by Fred J. Cochran against Herman Staman and another for commissions on the sale of real estate. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error.
1DissentKuhn, J.
{dissenting). This is an action by a real estate broker to recover a commission claimed to be due him under the following agreement:
“Northville, Mich., July 13, 1915.
“F. J. Cochran :
“In consideration of the services performed and to be performed by you, I, the undersigned, hereby give to you for a term of three months the exclusive sale of the following described property: N. W. *4 of section 7 and the west °f the northeast *4 of section 7, T. 1 S. range 9 east, containing 237 acres more or less; and you are hereby authorized by me to accept a deposit to be applied on the purchase price and to…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Gault v. StormontMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Toomy v. DunphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Zimmerman v. ZehendnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
- Paul v. GrahamMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Hall v. SouleMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Benedek v. Mechanical Products, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1946
- Craib v. Committee on National Missions of the Presbytery of Detroit of the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1975
- Greenberg v. SakwinskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Badger v. FinlaysonMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
- Lockeman v. DillmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.