Hannan v. Prentis

• Decision Date: 05 June 1900
• Citation: 124 Mich. 417,83 N.W. 102
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HANNAN v. PRENTIS.

83 N.W. 102

124 Mich. 417

HANNAN v. PRENTIS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 5, 1900

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Robert E. Frazer, Judge.

Action by William W. Hannan against John F. Prentis. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Walter Ross, for appellant.

Alfred J. Murphy, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY C.J.

This is an action to recover a commission for procuring a purchaser of a vacant lot in the city of Detroit. The plaintiff acted through employ�s of his office. Walter C. Wooley, a real-estate broker employed in plaintiff's office testified that defendant's brother, Browse T. Prentis listed the property with him for sale at the price of $6,000 or for trade for improved property. He testified: 'We had no further talk with reference to this property, except that I would try and secure a customer for him.' Eugene Reynolds, another broker in plaintiff's employ, testified: 'I saw this property--the property on Lafayette avenue--was listed on our book for exchange for improved store property. We had the house of Mr. A. C. Peoples, on Lincoln avenue, just about completed at the time. We had it for sale or exchange, and I went in to see Mr. B. T. Prentis about it, and told him about it. After some appointments with him, he came out with me one evening, and I showed him through the Peoples property. He said he would make a proposition on it. I went to see him then, I think, the next day; and he said he would have to have his brother, John F. Prentis, go and see it, as his brother was interested. That was the first I knew that John F. Prentis was interested in it at all. Up to that time I had not seen John F. Prentis. After I knew he was interested in it, of course, I called on John F., and had him go and see the property. He told me to see his brother, B. T. Prentis, and John F. told me B. T. would make me a proposition, and that anything B. T. did was satisfactory to him. I then called on B. Prentis, and worked on him until I got his written proposition on the exchange of his property for the Lincoln avenue property.' Browse T. Prentis testified that he had no knowledge that Reynolds was to get a commission from Peoples, and never knew that he was acting for Peoples. The testimony offered by the plaintiff tended to show that the trade fell through by reason of a defect in the title of defendant to the vacant lot. The defendant's testimony tended to show that Browse T. Prentis had no authority from his brother to make the agreement either with defendant or Peoples. The jury found these issues for the plaintiff.

The defendant raises a number of questions which are based on the statute of frauds, but as a contract of employment need not be in writing, and as the commission is earned when a customer is procured ready to purchase...