Case Name: STUART v. HOLT
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1911-07-05
Citations: 166 Mich. 549
Docket Number: Docket No. 56
Parties: STUART v. HOLT.
Judges: Ostrander, C. J., and Bird, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 166
Pages: 549–550

Head Matter:
STUART v. HOLT.
Trial — Requests—Appeal and Error.
A judgment will not be reversed for failure of the trial court to charge the jury upon a point not called to its attention by a proper request.
Error to Wayne; Murfin, J.
Submitted June 14, 1911.
(Docket No. 56.)
Decided July 5, 1911.
Assumpsit in justice’s court by Alexander J. Stuart against William R. Holt for broker’s commissions. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Lucius H. Collins, for appellant.
John Considine, Jr., for appellee.

Opinion:
Brooke, J.
Plaintiff brought suit to recover one-half of $600, being the amount of a commission upon the sale of a certain piece of real estate. It was claimed by plaintiff, and denied by defendant, that defendant had entered into an agreement with him to divide such commission in the event of sale. Defendant admitted the fact that the sale was made and that he received $600 commission therefor.
There are five assignments of error. The first and fifth only are relied upon and argued by defendant. Both of these assignments refer to alleged errors in the charge of the court. No requests to charge were preferred by defendant, and he cannot now complain that the court omitted to charge the jury upon a point to which its attention was not directed by a proper request. Peterson v. Toner, 80 Mich. 350 (45 N. W. 346); Kinney v. Folkerts, 84 Mich. 616 (48 N. W. 283); Miller v. Shumway, 135 Mich. 654 (98 N. W. 385); Proulx v. Bay City, 143 Mich. 550 (107 N. W. 273); Hammond v. Porter, 150 Mich. 328 (114 N. W. 64). We have examined the record, however, and are satisfied that there was no error in the charge.
The judgment is affirmed.
Ostrander, C. J., and Bird, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.