Court Opinion

ID: 9720031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:13:23.330228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:12.279380
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). Were this a case of first impression I would hold, upon the reasoning of Mm Justice Sharpe in the Ingham County Bar Case (pp 230-233), that the drafting of legal instruments by which title to real and personal property is conveyed,, transferred or otherwise affected as between contracting parties, constitutes both the practice of law and engagement “in the law business”. However, right or wrong, an overwhelming majority of the-Court has supported Mr. Justice Butzel’s contrary declaration that there can be no “objection to a licensed broker doing such work without compensation when it is incidental to his business”. Ingham County Bar Association v. Walter Neller Company, 342 Mich 214, 229 (53 ALR2d 777).
In the present case a like majority of the Court has apparently concluded that stare decisis et non quieta movere is the order of the day. I yield, reluctantly, much as did Mr. Justice Fellows in *697Pratt v. Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co., 225 Mich 147, 151. On that occasion onr distinguished predecessor—demurring to the end—went along with his remaining Brethren when they adopted the rule <of evidence found in Blade v. Michigan Central R. Co., 146 Mich 568.
Kavanagh, J., concurred with Black, J.