Stuart v. Holt
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Murfin, J. Assumpsit in justice’s court by Alexander J. Stuart against William R. Holt for broker’s commissions. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
Plaintiff brought suit to recover one-half of $600, being the amount of a commission upon the sale of a certain piece of real estate. It was claimed by plaintiff, and denied by defendant, that defendant had entered into an agreement with him to divide such commission in the event of sale. Defendant admitted the fact that the sale was made and that he received $600 commission therefor.
There are five assignments of error. The first and fifth only are relied upon and argued by defendant. Both of these assignments refer to alleged errors in the charge of the court. No requests to charge were…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kinney v. FolkertsMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Peterson v. TonerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Hammond v. PorterMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Proulx v. Bay CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Miller v. ShumwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
3Cited by5 opinions
- Tishhouse v. SchoenbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- Pruner v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Sakorraphos v. Eastman Kodak Stores, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1962
- Sakorraphos v. Eastman Kodak Stores, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1962
- Township of Rockland v. OxnamMichigan Supreme Court · 1917