Legal Opinion
Wright v. Beach
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 10, 1890PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Error to Jackson. . (Peck, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
The defendant authorized the plaintiff to sell a certain piece of land, the property of one Mrs. Steele, for whom defendant was agent. The agreement was in writing, and is as follows:
“Jackson, Mich., June 22, 1888.
“I hereby authorize Z. E. Wright to sell the Dixon place on Fourth and Union street, subject to right of redemption, for the sum of $350 net cash to me, the amount above the same to be retained by said Wright as his commission. This sale is made subject to any back taxes on same. This agreement to be binding for 60 days. , Will Beach.”
The case was tried with a jury.
July 25, 1888,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Merkeley v. FiskCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Colburn v. SeymourSupreme Court of Colorado · 1904
- C. O. Frick Co. v. BaetzelOhio Court of Appeals · 1942
- Crawford v. CicotteMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- French v. LoveCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.