Codd v. Seitz
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The; facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtDurand, J.
This action was brought by the plaintiffs against two defendants, who are husband and wife, to recover for certain commissions claimed to have been earned by them in negotiating the sale of certain real estate owned by the defendant Mary 0. Seitz. Upon the trial, after the introduction of the proof, the court held that, there was no evidence of a joint promise, and permitted the plaintiffs, against objection, to discontinue the suit as against the' defendant John H. Seitz, and an amendment of the pleadings in that respect; whereupon the case was submitted to the jury, who found a verdict for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Winslow v. HerrickMichigan Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by1 opinion
- Root & McBride Co. v. Walton Salt Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1905