Borland-McBrearty v. Bianco

Michigan Court of Appeals

Borland-McBrearty v. Bianco

176 N.W.2d 712, 22 Mich. App. 42, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1936

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 1970

DocketDocket 6,903

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 176 N.W.2d 712 (Borland-McBrearty v. Bianco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borland-McBrearty v. Bianco, 176 N.W.2d 712, 22 Mich. App. 42, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1936 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action on which plaintiff recovered judgment below in a non-jury trial and the action which we review is stated in count 2 of plaintiff’s amended complaint. It is an action for damages resulting from misrepresentation of authority by defendant, an agent, to plaintiff. It is an action in tort for fraud. It is not an action for a real estate commission as defendant contends.

In this posture, the relevant issues on appeal are the liability of an agent for misrepresentation to a third person, are the findings of fact clearly erroneous, and, if not, do they support the judgment?

An agent is liable for misrepresentation of authority. Restatement Agency, 2d, § 330, p 86; 3 Am Jur 2d, Agency, § 300, p 659; Charvat v. Gildemeister (1923), 222 Mich 286.

The following findings of fact by the trial judge are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous, GCR 1963, 517.1: that defendant told plaintiff she had power of attorney to sell the house involved and that plaintiff relied on this representation. That plaintiff procured an offer to purchase at the price requested. That defendant signed the names of the sellers to the purchase agreement and claimed she had power of attorney to do so. That defendant had no power of attorney, and when the wife of the seller refused to sell, plaintiff lost the commission it would have received if defendant had had the authority she represented she possessed.

These findings support the judgment. The other issues raised by defendant are not relevant and Snider v. Dunn (1968), 11 Mich App 39, is inapposite.

Affirmed with costs to plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The action on which plaintiff recovered judgment below in a non-jury trial and the action which we review is stated in count 2 of plaintiff’s amended complaint. It is an action for damages resulting from misrepresentation of authority by defendant, an agent, to plaintiff. It is an action in tort for fraud. It is not an action for a real estate commission as defendant contends.

In this posture, the relevant issues on appeal are the liability of an agent for misrepresentation to a third person, are the findings of fact clearly erroneous, and, if not, do they support the judgment?

An agent is liable for misrepresentation of authority. Restatement Agency, 2d, § 330, p 86; 3 Am Jur 2d, Agency, § 300, p 659; Charvat v. Gildemeister (1923), 222 Mich 286.

The following findings of fact by the trial judge are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous, GCR 1963, 517.1: that defendant told plaintiff she had power of attorney to sell the house involved and that plaintiff relied on this representation. That plaintiff procured an offer to purchase at the price requested. That defendant signed the names of the sellers to the purchase agreement and claimed she had power of attorney to do so. That defendant had no power of attorney, and when the wife of the seller refused to sell, plaintiff lost the commission it would have received if defendant had had the authority she represented she possessed.

These findings support the judgment. The other issues raised by defendant are not relevant and Snider v. Dunn (1968), 11 Mich App 39, is inapposite.

Affirmed with costs to plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 N.W.2d 712, 22 Mich. App. 42, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borland-mcbrearty-v-bianco-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack