Hubbard v. Leiter
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Berrien; Coolidge, J. Assumpsit by M. C. Hubbard, M. J. Merwin, and C. K. Farmer, copartners as Hubbard, Merwin & Farmer, against Edward T. Leiter for commissions on the sale of real estate. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
Read the full summary
Error to Berrien; Coolidge, J. Assumpsit by M. C. Hubbard, M. J. Merwin, and C. K. Farmer, copartners as Hubbard, Merwin & Farmer, against Edward T. Leiter for commissions on the sale of real estate. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Defendant, a dealer in real estate, listed his farm of 48 acres with the plaintiffs, real estate brokers, for sale under the following written agreement: “I desire you to sell for me the property described above at the price, terms, and kind of payment- named, or at less price or easier terms I may hereafter approve, and if you sell…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). Counsel for the defendant insists that the contract is void for want of mutuality. ' There is no force in this contention. Defendant gave authority to plaintiffs to find a customer for his land, and agreed to pay a commission if they found one to whom he should sell. If he found such a purchaser and defendant sold to him, the contract became executed (McDonald v. Ortman, 88 Mich. 645, 98 Mich. 40), and plaintiffs became entitled to their commission. The court expressly instructed the jury that if Mr. Harner was the procuring cause of the sale, the plaintiffs could…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McDonald v. OrtmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- McDonald v. OrtmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fuday v. GillMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Tyson v. HerrleMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
- Rice-Wray v. PalmaMichigan Supreme Court · 1921