Case ID: mich-app_37/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEREIRA v. MASEL SUPPLY CO
    Evidence — -Admissibility—Interrogatories—Refusal to Answer —Court Rules.
    Permitting plaintiff to introduce, in an action for unpaid sales commissions, the best evidence at his disposal of his sales volume and the amount of commission due was proper where defendants had refused to answer interrogatories on these very points in the face of an order of the court, in view of the serious sanctions that the court could have imposed under the rules (GCR 1963, 313.2).
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    23 Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery §§ 256, 263.
    Appeal from Oakland, William John Beer, J.
    Submitted Division 2 November 3, 1971, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 10956.)
    Decided November 29, 1971.
    Leave to appeal denied, 386 Mich 788.
    Complaint by Leonard Pereira against Masel Supply Company, Mendel Mendlowitz, and Leopold Mendlovic for unpaid sales commissions. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Gage, Brukoff, Dubin <& Suedara (by Richard A. Renter), for plaintiff.
    
      Friedman, Kraft é Cohen, for defendants.
    Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and O’Hara, JJ.
    
      
       Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
    
   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.