Legal Opinion

McDonald v. Ortman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1893PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

The judgment in this case must be reversed, for the admission of incompetent and immaterial evidence.

1. Plaintiff was a land broker, whose principal business was the sale and purchase of land for others upon commission. The declaration contains a special count setting forth an express contract for the sale of certain of defend- . ant’s lands for the sum of $50,000, and that defendant ■ promised that in case plaintiff should sell said lands, or be 'instrumental in procuring a purchaser therefor if the lands should be sold, the defendant would pay the plaintiff a -commission on such sale of 5…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Campau v. MoranMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Pierson v. SpauldingMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Peters v. GallagherMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  4. McDonald v. OrtmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  5. McLennan v. McDermidMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. King v. StephensonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  2. McKinnon v. GatesMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Dillon v. PinchMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Winemiller v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  5. Phœnix Securities Co. v. DittmarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1915

2 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