Legal Opinion

Mead v. Rehm

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1932No. Docket No. 18, Calendar No. 34,879PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWiest, J.

Under land contract John, George, and Grace Rehm held comparatively small vendees’ interests in certain resort property at Sand Lake, Lenawee county. They exchanged their interests for equities in other properties. Plaintiff, a real estate broker, brought about the exchange, and in this suit seeks to recover his commission.

The statute, 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13417, slightly transposed, provides that:

“Every agreement, promise or contract to pay any commission for or upon the sale of any interest in real estate * * * shall be void, unless such agreement, contract or promise, or some note or…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Krause v. BoraksMichigan Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Purification Systems, Inc. v. Mastan Co., Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1972
  3. Aetna Mortgage Co. v. DembsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
  4. Cardillo v. Canusa Extrusion Engineering, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. Jaynes v. PetoskeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1944

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