Pinch v. Morford

105 N.W. 22, 142 Mich. 63, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 642
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 21, 1905
DocketDocket No. 68
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 N.W. 22 (Pinch v. Morford) 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
Pinch v. Morford, 105 N.W. 22, 142 Mich. 63, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 642 (Mich. 1905).

Opinion

Blair, J.

This action was commenced in justice’s court to recover a commission of $32, claimed to be due plaintiff from defendant as the agreed compensation for his services as middleman in bringing the defendant and one Conklin together, resulting in an exchange of property. Plaintiff recovered judgment in justice’s court, but, on appeal to the circuit court, the court, at the close of the plaintiff’s proofs, directed a verdict for the defend[64]*64ant, “on the ground that there was no evidence which tended to show that the plaintiffs employment was that of a middleman, but that his employment was that of an agent or broker for the defendant in the sale of this property.” The correctness of this ruling presents the only question for our consideration under the assignments of error.

The only witnesses sworn in the case were the plaintiff and Mr. Conklin, one of the parties to the trade. Plaintiff testified, among other things, as follows:

“On the 13th day of February, 1903, I went over to Olivet. I went in and saw Mr. Morford, and asked him if he wanted to trade his hardware stock, that was owned by Mr. Morford and Mr. Miller, for this Fry forty acres of land, owned by Mr. Conklin, south of there; that Mr. Conklin wanted a hardware stock. Had quite a conversation about it, and he said he didn’t think that they wanted to do it. * * * Mr. Morford said to me he wished he could make a trade of this store building, which he individually owned; * * * that he would like to trade this building for that farm. He said, ‘ Don’t you think you could make the trade ?’ I told him I did not know whether I could or not. He had asked me what Mr. Conklin asked for.the farm, and I told him what Mr. Conklin had told me, that he wanted $2,500 for the Fry farm, $2,200 for the Fry farm, and $300 for his equity in the other forty; * * * and he says: ‘ I will tell you what I will do. I will give $600 in money to boot between this store, which I value at $1,600, and the improved Fry forty.’ I told him of course I didn’t know whether we would be able to make a'trade, but I would lay the matter before them. I went home, and talked with Mr. Conklin concerning the matter, and finally made arrangements whereby Mr. Conklin would go to Olivet and investigate the property. I told him we could not trade for the stock, but could for this property. On the 18th day of February, Mr. Conklin, Mr. Stringham, and myself took the morning train for Olivet. I had some other deals on the string for this Fry forty over there, and I had told Mr. Conklin if he would go, I thought that between the two or three deals I thought we would be able to find one that would be satisfactory to him. He looked at another man’s house and lot before he looked at the store, and made up [65]*65his mind to go down to the store and look at that property. He went there, and Mr. Morford wasn’t there at that time, but he came a short time afterwards, and we got together and talked matters over. He said he didn’t want the other forty, but Mr. Conklin said ‘the tail would have to go with the hide.’ He didn’t want to let the improved forty go unless he would let the wild forty go too, which was incumbered. Finally, he says: ‘ I will give $800 in cash between the two, taking the equity in the one and the other free and clear, and the store property free and clear, and give $800 in cash.’
“Mr. Williams: Who said that ?
“A. Mr. Morford. Mr. Conklin said he would take a thousand. Mr. Morford said he wouldn’t give it. At this time, Mr. Morford was in the front of the store, and ■Mr. Conklin sat back by the stove, and I talked with one and then talked with the other. Mr. Morford finally says, ‘ I will make that $850 in cash, and that is the best I will do.’ I went back again, and .talked with Mr. Conklin by the stove, and I says, ‘ Conklin, you make the best offer you will make,’ and he said he wouldn’t do that. ‘You make the best offer you will make.’ He says, ‘ If he wants to close that deal up today, I will take $900 in cash, and I won’t take a cent less. You can tell him that, and if he wants to do business that way, we will do it.’ I went back again, and talked with Mr. Morford. Mr. Morford says, ‘No; I won’t give $900.’ This was the time he says ‘ I will give $850, and I won’t give any more.’ Then I went back to Mr. Conklin again, and explained the matter, and he says, ‘ No; I will go and see the other fellow, and I won’t take a cent less than $900.’ Mr. Morford had refused to give the $900, and he got up and put on his coat, and Mr. Stringham put on his coat, and I put. on mine. It was a very cold day, and we started for the door, and when we got there to the front of the store, where Mr. Morford was, Mr. Morford — some of them had made the remark that we would go, and see the other party that was figuring on the deal, and he says, ‘ Plold on; I will take up that proposition. I will give you $900.’ He says, ‘Allright. We will go over to Keyes’, over to the bank, and draw a contract to that effect.’ We all went over there, and Mr. Keyes drew up a contract. I think there was a forfeiture in there on both sides if one backed out. They was to have a certain length of time —perhaps ten days — to get their abstracts around and con[66]*66súmmate the deal, and they both signed it, and Mr; Keyes and myself signed it as witnesses. * * *
“Q. You went down there to sell that property for Mr. Conklin, did you not, or to exchange it ?
“A. No; I went there on some business of my own.
“Q. But you had this property of his for sale or exchange did you not, when you went down there ?
“A. Nothing more than Mr. Conklin said if I could find anybody down there to buy it, that he wanted to sell or exchange, and wanted me to look around, and see what I could do for him.
“Q. He asked you to find a sale or exchange for his property ? '
“A. Yes; he asked me particularly about this stock of goods, and said, ‘ Go and see if this man, Morford, wants to trade that stock of goods for this farm.’ * * *
“Q. At any rate you went up there for the purpose, among other things, of seeing whether or not you could make this trade or exchange for Mr. Conklin ?
“A. I went to Olivet—
“Q. You went there for that, among other things ?
“A. I looked after that, among other things; I was going up there anyway. * * *
“Q. (interrupting). Isn’t it true that you went in there,- and said, ‘ I have got that Fry farm for sale or exchange ?’
“A. Oh, no; that is not true.
“Q. And that you did not disclose the name of the party that owned the farm, right then and there ?
“A. No; that is not true either. I told them who owned it. They knew who owned it without my telling them. * * *
“Q. "Well, while we are on this subject, what were you to get for your services ? "Was there anything said as to your making Mr. Morford the best deal that you could, or was there anything said of that kind at all ?'
“A.

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

Related

Whittenberg v. Carnegie
42 N.W.2d 900 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1950)
Lister v. Sakwinski
172 N.W. 397 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1919)
Clopton v. Meeves
133 P. 907 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 N.W. 22, 142 Mich. 63, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinch-v-morford-mich-1905.