Legal Opinion

Casey v. Hetherington

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1922No. Docket No. 25PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcDonald, J.

The plaintiffs are real estate brokers in the city of Detroit. They are here suing for commission. Their declaration is on the common counts with notice of the following special contract:.

“June 17, 1920.
“I agree to pay James P. Casey and John C. Reedy a commission of $1,000 less the State and county taxes on the property located No. 45-47-49 Adelaide street, for deal with Mr. Bernstein.
“T. H. Hetherington,
“Louise B. Hetherington.”

The defendants’ plea was the general issue to which *177was added a notice that the deal with Bernstein was not closed because of leases on the property extending for…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cain v. MasuretteMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Gettleson v. LewisMichigan Supreme Court · 1919

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. MAX BROOCK, INC. v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
  2. State ex rel. Graves v. WiegandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  3. D. & W. Rottschafer Real Estate v. MorrisMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Broomfield v. AbassMichigan Supreme Court · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API