Pereira v. Masel Supply Co.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Pereira v. Masel Supply Co.

194 N.W.2d 486, 37 Mich. App. 278, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1200

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 1971

DocketDocket No. 10956

StatusPublished

This text of 194 N.W.2d 486 (Pereira v. Masel Supply Co.) 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

Pereira v. Masel Supply Co., 194 N.W.2d 486, 37 Mich. App. 278, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1200 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff is a sales representative formerly employed by defendants; his suit for unpaid commissions resulted in a jury verdict in his favor in the amount of $10,000.

Defendants appeal alleging certain errors in the admission of exhibits and testimony. The evidence introduced dealt with plaintiff’s sales volume and the amount of commissions due. Prior to trial, and in the face of an order of the court, defendants refused to answer interrogatories on these very points.

In view of defendants’ recalcitrance, and the serious sanctions the court1 could have imposed pursuant to GrCR 1963, 313.2, we feel the trial court acted properly by allowing the plaintiff to iiitroduce the best evidence at his disposal.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff is a sales representative formerly employed by defendants; his suit for unpaid commissions resulted in a jury verdict in his favor in the amount of $10,000.

Defendants appeal alleging certain errors in the admission of exhibits and testimony. The evidence introduced dealt with plaintiff’s sales volume and the amount of commissions due. Prior to trial, and in the face of an order of the court, defendants refused to answer interrogatories on these very points.

In view of defendants’ recalcitrance, and the serious sanctions the court1 could have imposed pursuant to GrCR 1963, 313.2, we feel the trial court acted properly by allowing the plaintiff to iiitroduce the best evidence at his disposal.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 N.W.2d 486, 37 Mich. App. 278, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pereira-v-masel-supply-co-michctapp-1971.