Case Name: EVANS v. RUSSELL
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1914-06-01
Citations: 180 Mich. 534
Docket Number: Docket No. 46
Parties: EVANS v. RUSSELL.
Judges: McAlvay, C. J., and Brooke, Kuhn, Stone, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 180
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
EVANS v. RUSSELL.
Brokers — Evidence—Commissions.
Evidence tending to show that plaintiff brokers undertook to sell real property of the defendant for a price agreed upon, that they found a purchaser ready and willing to pay the price asked, that defendant declined to make the conveyance because his wife would not sign the deed, defendant disputing the claim of plaintiffs as to the contract, held, to present an issue of fact which was properly submitted to a jury.
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J.
Submitted April 15, 1914.
(Docket No. 46.)
Decided June 1, 1914.
Assumpsit by Louis M. Evans and Charles L. Fratcher against Henry Russell for brokers’ commissions. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Frank L. Dodge, for appellant.
Harry A. Silsbee (Person, Shields & Silsbee, of counsel), for appellees.

Opinion:
Ostrander, J.
The issue in this cause is simple. The testimony on the part of plaintiffs, who are partners, tended to prove that they undertook for the defendant to sell his real estate for $14,000 for which they were to be paid a commission of $400; that they produced a purchaser able and willing to pay the price; that the defendant then refused to sell, giving as a reason that his wife would not join him in conveying the property. On the part of defendant the testimony tended to prove that he made no such bargain with plaintiffs; that his property was only for sale upon a contingency, which did not occur. Specific denials of the material testimony of plaintiffs were given. There was testimony which, if believed, warranted a verdict for plaintiffs. The cause was submitted to a jury with instructions, which, although criticised, seem to us to correctly state applicable rules of law. A motion for a new trial was denied. We have examined the assignments of error, 47' in number, have read the record with care, and are of opinion that none of the errors are well assigned.
The judgment is affirmed.
McAlvay, C. J., and Brooke, Kuhn, Stone, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.