Legal Opinion

Cain v. Masurette

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 9, 1917No. Docket No. 47PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Error to Wayne; Mandell, J. Assumpsit by Earl R. Cain against William F. Masurette for broker’s commissions. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.

This is an action in assumpsit to recover commissions claimed to be due the plaintiff for effecting a sale of certain real estate belonging to the defendant. On April 9, 1913, the defendant, at the solicitation of the plaintiff, signed and delivered to the plaintiff the following writing:

“April 9, 1913.
“I hereby offer to sell to C. M. Harmon, or his assigns lot nine (9) of block eight (8) of Crane & Wes*9son’s subdivision, said premises having a frontage of thirty-eight (38) feet on the easterly side of Elton Park, and a depth of eighty (80) feet along the northerly side of Elizabeth street,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Coleman's Ex'r v. MeadeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
  2. Rice v. MayoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  3. Francis v. BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  4. Love v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  5. McFarland v. LillardIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Frischkorn Real Estate Co. v. HoskinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Landskroener v. HenningMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Gettleson v. LewisMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Koffman v. PackMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Beatty v. GoodrichMichigan Supreme Court · 1923

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API