Ardash v. Karp

Decision Date26 June 1969
Docket NumberDocket No. 5853,No. 2,2
PartiesYacoubian ARDASH and Arous Ardash, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Martin KARP and Paul Schneider, Defendants-Appellants
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Donald M. Cutler, Temple & Cutler, Southfield, for defendants-appellants.

Perica, Breithart, McAlpine & Carmody, Warren, for appellees.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and DANHOF, JJ.

QUINN, Judge.

Plaintiff landlords brought this action to recover rent due under a lease and for damages for alleged waste committed by defendant tenants. Defendants' answer alleged prior breach of the lease by plaintiffs and denied any waste. Subsequently, defendants counter-claimed for credit arising from their security deposit, for damages due to the alleged destruction of their personal property by plaintiffs and for injury to their reputation, character and for mental anguish by reason of an alleged libel committed by plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs entered on favorable jury verdict and defendants appeal.

In support of their appeal, defendants contend the trial judge committed reversible error in charging the jury that there was no competent proof to establish an agency relationship between plaintiffs and their son and in further charging the jury that the document defendants claimed was libelous was not libel per se. Defendants also assert it was reversible error to exclude statements of unnamed persons, not present in court, as to what the alleged libelous document meant to them.

Defendants are osteopaths and they rented a suite of offices in a building owned by plaintiffs whose dentist son occupied the rest of the building. In June of 1966 without prior notice to plaintiffs, defendants were in the process of moving their offices to a new location 100 feet south of plaintiffs' building. Defendants placed signs announcing the move on the lobby door and in front of the building. Defendants' rent was paid through June 1966. On instruction from his father, the dentist son removed the sign from in front of the building and placed it inside the building. One of defendants replaced the sign in front of the building and plaintiffs' son again removed it.

June 28, 1966, as defendants were moving some equipment from plaintiffs' building to the new location, the dentist son demanded defendant Schneider's keys to the Ardash building. The keys were surrendered as requested. Yacoubian Ardash testified that he did not ask his son to demand the keys nor did he authorize the son to do so. July 6, 1966, defendants' attorney sent plaintiffs a letter stating that defendants considered they were no longer bound by the lease with plaintiffs, and defendants paid no further rent.

March 28, 1967, plaintiffs filed this action and defendants filed timely answer. During May of 1967, Yacoubian Ardash mailed about 200 cards to the public at large announcing that he had leased 21761 Ryan Road (defendants' former address) 'to a group of competent medical doctors not osteopaths'....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Embrey v. Holly
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 7, 1981
    ...denied, 338 U.S. 858, 70 S.Ct. 100, 94 L.Ed. 525 (1949); Elmer v. Fessenden, 151 Mass. 359, 24 N.E. 208 (1889); Ardash v. Karp, 18 Mich.App. 241, 170 N.W.2d 854 (1969); Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 48 N.J.Super. 420, 138 A.2d 61 (1958); Hall v. American Friends Service Committee, ......
  • Embrey v. Holly
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 7, 1981
    ...denied, 338 U.S. 858, 70 S. Ct. 100, 94 L. Ed. 525 (1949); Elmer v. Fessenden, 151 Mass. 359, 24 N.E. 208 (1889); Ardash v. Karp, 18 Mich. App. 241, 170 N.W.2d 854 (1969); Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 48 N.J. Super. 420, 138 A.2d 61 (1958); Hall v. American Friends Service Committ......
  • People v. Fiorini, Docket No. 15546
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 29, 1974
  • Dinkins v. Hutzel Hosp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 30, 1996
    ...out, however, that the right to control need not be exercised, and can be inferred from the circumstances. Ardash v. Karp, 18 Mich.App. 241, 244, 170 N.W.2d 854, 856 (1969). Even giving credit for circumstantial evidence of an agency relationship, when all the facts that could support the t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT