Page images
PDF
EPUB

shows that, if the title had passed to Gates by the fulfillment of the contract, still all the timber left and remaining upon the lands at the end of five years should revert and pass back to Gamble."

See, also, Hodges v. Buell, 134 Mich. 162 (95 N. W. 1078).

4. Has the court of equity jurisdiction? Equity is invoked in this instance, not to declare a forfeiture as stated by appellant, but to prevent a removal of property belonging to the complainant. See Watrous v. Allen, 57 Mich. 362 (24 N. W. 104, 58 Am. Rep. 363).

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

STEERE, MCALVAY, BROOKE, BLAIR, STONE, and OSTRANDER, JJ., concurred. BIRD, J., did not sit.

LAMBRECHT v. STOEPEL REALTY CO.

1. BROKERS-COMMISSIONS EVIDENCE.

In a case involving plaintiff's right to recover real estate commissions, where one of the plaintiffs was asked if at any time an arrangement was made with defendant that they should receive less if they performed a part of the contract than if they performed the entire agreement, and after witness had answered, an objection was interposed by defendant and sustained, but, no motion being made to strike out the answer, it remained in evidence, prejudicial error did not appear.

8. SAME-IMPLIED CONTRACT-VALUE.

And where brokers had an express agreement for compensation, it was not error to reject testimony as to the value of certain services performed in building on defendant's property, and included by the terms of the express contract. 169 MICH.-6,

Error to Wayne; Murfin, J. Submitted January 11, 1912. (Docket No. 44.) Decided March 12, 1912.

Assumpsit by Richard G. Lambrecht and others against the Stoepel Realty Company for commissions. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

U. Grant Race and Walter S. Haas, for appellants. Charles K. Latham, for appellee.

MOORE, C. J. The plaintiffs made sales of real estate for defendant. Upon some of the lots plaintiff had constructed buildings. The real estate was sold upon land contracts. Plaintiff made collections upon some of these contracts. This suit was brought to recover the balance of commissions plaintiffs claim were due to them.

The questions involved are stated in the appellants' brief as follows:

"The aggregate amount of the sales on contracts was $31,200, of which amount the plaintiffs had collected $7,999.02, leaving a balance of $24,100.98. The bill of particulars shows the plaintiffs to have received and collected $2,154.95. Right here was the only question on which the parties differ. The plaintiffs claim the contract provided for an entire commission of 10 per cent. based on the selling prices. The defendant denied this, claiming that the commission was divisible-5 per cent. for selling and 5 per cent. for collecting the contracts, looking after the property, etc. If plaintiffs' contention was correct, then the plaintiffs' entire commission was $3,120, leaving a balance of $965.05 due and unpaid. If the defendant's claim was correct, then the plaintiffs were entitled to 5 per cent. of $31,200, or $1,560, plus 5 per cent. of $7,999.02, the amount collected, or $399.95, or a total of $1,959.95, so that under the defendant's theory the plaintiffs had been overpaid $195. This issue of fact was clearly defined in the pleadings. The plaintiffs declared specially on the contract and also on a quantum meruit. The defendant pleaded the general issue with notice that the contract provided for 5 per cent. commission for selling and 5 per cent. for collecting."

The first assignment of error relates to the ruling of the court during the examination of Mr. Lambrecht. The record shows as follows:

"Q. Was it ever stated to you at any time that a division of this contract should be made? That, if you performed only a portion of the contract you were to receive less than the whole price therein stated?

"A. No.

"Mr. Latham: I object to the question.

"The Court: I sustain the objection. (Plaintiffs except.)"

This ruling is said to be error. It will be observed that the question was answered. No motion was made to strike out the answer, and it still remained for the consideration of the jury. The record also shows that Mr. Lambrecht testified in detail as to the contract which was made. We do not think what occurred was reversible error.

Complaint is made because the witness was not allowed to testify as to the usual price real estate people obtained for building on account of a client, and because an objection was sustained to the following question put to Mr. Stoepel: "Do you know whether plaintiffs spent any money to advertise your property?"

Counsel say as to these questions:

"The existence of an express contract being admitted, the only thing in dispute was, What was the commission provided for in the contract? The value of the services rendered was admissible as tending to show whether the contention of the plaintiffs or defendant was the more probable, or, in other words, to show what was the contract the parties actually made."

One trouble with this contention is that the arrangement about putting up the buildings was made after the express contract was made, and the parties are all agreed that the buildings were to be erected at cost by the plaintiffs who were building contractors as well as dealers in real estate. Counsel also say:

"The plaintiffs had the right (1) to join a special count on contract with the quantum meruit, and, having so declared, they had the right, under the quantum meruit, to show the value of their services, and (2) elect on which count they would proceed."

An answer to this argument is, the plaintiffs made no such election. It was their claim in the court below, as it is here, that there was an express contract. Both parties were agreed as to that, but they were not agreed as to its terms. That question was left to the jury under a fair charge, and the jury found against the contention of the plaintiffs.

Judgment is affirmed.

STEERE, MCALVAY, BROOKE, BLAIR, STONE, and OSTRANDER, JJ., concurred. BIRD, J., did not sit.

LORANGER v. JAGEMAN.

TRIAL-CONDUCT OF COURT-IMPARTIALITY of Judge-BIAS. Where comments of the trial judge, made before the jury, tended to show the court's want of belief in statements of a witness for the defense, defendant was denied a fair trial, and a judgment for plaintiff is reversed.

Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Submitted January 17, 1912. (Docket No. 102.) Decided March 12, 1912.

Trover by Joseph Loranger against Florenz J. Jageman for the conversion of a certificate of corporate stock. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

B. J. Lincoln, for appellant.

Charles E. Duffy, for appellee.

MOORE, C. J. This case is an action in trover for the conversion of one certificate representing 100 shares of the stock of the Star Varnish Works, a corporation, of the face value of $1,000. The case was tried before a jury in the Wayne circuit court, and plaintiff had verdict and judgment in the sum of $1,095.83. The case is in this court by writ of error.

We think it un

There are many assignments of error. necessary to discuss many of them. The trial judge evidently reached the impression early in the case that plaintiff had a meritorious case, and that the defense which was interposed was without merit. This impression apparently remained with him all through the trial and affected his charge to the jury. His attitude is indicated by the following extract from the record. Mr. Jageman was under examination as a witness:

"Q. I ask you again, Mr. Jageman, what in your opinion as the general manager of that company, and being familiar with the business, what the fair reasonable value of the fixtures on hand May 17th was? (Objected to; lack of foundation.)

"The Court: We have got him on record one way; let him go on the other.

"A. On that day I should judge it would be worth about $2,000.

"Q. On that same day, in your opinion, what was the value of the real estate? (Objected to for the same reason.)

"The Court: He is on record one way; let him go on the other, if he wants to.

"Mr. Lincoln: Note an exception.

"A. I should think about $4,000.

"Q. I will ask you what, in your opinion, was the value of the outstanding accounts due the company from your examination of the books?

"A. I should judge they were about $5,800 at that time. The liabilities of the company on May 17, 1909, were as follows: Due on land contract, about $330; due

« PreviousContinue »