Horwitz v. Pepper

Michigan Supreme Court

Horwitz v. Pepper

87 N.W. 1034, 128 Mich. 688, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 659

DecidedDecember 3, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 87 N.W. 1034 (Horwitz v. Pepper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horwitz v. Pepper, 87 N.W. 1034, 128 Mich. 688, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 659 (Mich. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. The court very clearly instructed the jury in accordance with the rule in Friar v. Smith, 120 Mich. 411 (79 N. W. 633, 46 L. R. A. 229). There was evidence that neither the defendant nor his vendee had any knowledge that either was paying plaintiff a commission. Plaintiff, under his own testimony, was not a middle man, under the rule of that case. He negotiated the trade himself with the defendant, who did not know who the real vendee was until he had executed his contract to the plaintiff.'

2. Plaintiff was not a real-estate dealer, and never attempted to negotiate a sale before. This fact, and his relations and dealings with the defendant, were competent ■evidence for the jury to consider in determining whether, even under the plaintiff’s own statement, there was an implied contract of employment.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. The court very clearly instructed the jury in accordance with the rule in Friar v. Smith, 120 Mich. 411 (79 N. W. 633, 46 L. R. A. 229). There was evidence that neither the defendant nor his vendee had any knowledge that either was paying plaintiff a commission. Plaintiff, under his own testimony, was not a middle man, under the rule of that case. He negotiated the trade himself with the defendant, who did not know who the real vendee was until he had executed his contract to the plaintiff.'

2. Plaintiff was not a real-estate dealer, and never attempted to negotiate a sale before. This fact, and his relations and dealings with the defendant, were competent ■evidence for the jury to consider in determining whether, even under the plaintiff’s own statement, there was an implied contract of employment.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 N.W. 1034, 128 Mich. 688, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horwitz-v-pepper-mich-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack