Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

88 Mich. 645

McDonald v. Ortman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1891

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1891-12-21

<p>Question for jmp — Commissions on sale of real estate.</p> <p>1. Where plaintiff’s testimony makes a prima facie case, and is contradicted in material parts by that of the defendant, the case should be submitted to the jury!</p> <p>■2. Testimony tending to show that the plaintiff made a special agreement with the defendant that he should be paid a commission of two and one-half per cent, on whatever price ceri tain real estate was sold for, if he was instrumental in bringing about the sale, and that he was instrumental in bringing about a sale for §45,000, and also what his services were worth in estimating the pine upon the land preparatory to a sale thereof, and that the defendant requested him to proceed and find a purchaser from time to time, which he did, if uncontradicted, entitles the plaintiff to recover.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Eeversed · Decided 1891-12-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1921

6 state decisions

301891190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ohamplin, C. J.

¶1The plaintiff brought this suit to recover commissions which he claims are owing to him by defendant for his efforts in selling eertain pine lairds belonging to defendant. The declaration also contains the common counts in assumpsit.

¶2Upon the trial he gave testimony tending to show that he made a special agreement with the defendant that he should be paid 2i¡ per cent, commission on whatever price the land was sold for, if he was instrumental in bringing about the sale. He also introduced testimony tending to show that he was instrumental in bringing about a sale for $45,000. He also showed what his services were worth in estimating the pine upon the land preparatory to a sale thereof, and he introduced testimony .tending to show that the defendant requested him to proceed and find a purchaser from time to time, which he did. There is no doubt that, if there had been no-testimony introduced on the part of the defendant, plaintiff would have been entitled to recover.

¶3The defendant and the purchaser testified on behalf of defendant directly contrary to plaintiff's testimony in material parts, whereupon the court directed a verdict for the defendant.

¶4In this we think the court erred. The plaintiff had made at least a prima facie case, and, although the testimony of the defendant tended to contradict it, the case was one that should have been submitted to the jury.

¶5The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.
/88/mich/645 · .json · Public domain