Ranke v. Mich. Corp., 12.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 12.,12. |
| Citation | 317 Mich. 304,26 N.W.2d 898 |
| Parties | RANKE v. MICHIGAN CORPORATION AND SECURITIES COMMISSION. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Michigan Corporation and Securities Commission.
Proceeding on the appeal by Rudulph C. Ranke from an order of the Michigan Corporation and Securities Commission suspending plaintiff's real estate broker's license for a period of ninety days.
Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench, except DETHMERS, J.
Victor H. Wehmeier, of Detroit, for appellee.
Foss O. Eldred, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, and Daniel J. O'Hara, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Michigan corporation and securities commission. Plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, solicited an exclusive listing from George D. Ostergren for the sale of his house in Detroit. A printed form of listing agreement was signed June 29, 1944, and a copy mailed by the broker to the seller next day. Within a few days, plaintiff found a buyer for the property, accepted a deposit on the property and forwarded the same to the seller, who promptly returned it.
Thereafter, plaintiff brought an action in the common pleas court in the city of Detroit for his commission and obtained a judgment for the full amount of his commission. After plaintiff brought the above action, the seller filed a complaint against plaintiff with the corporation and securities commission claiming that no selling price had been agreed upon. An informal hearing was had at which time plaintiff was advised to satisfy the uncollected judgment. The judgment was not satisfied and plaintiff collected the same by garnishment. Plaintiff was cited to appear before a deputy commissioner on October 13, 1944. Plaintiff's attorney attempted to have the hearing postponed and continued to a day certain when plaintiff and his attorney could be present. The deputy commissioner refused a continuance of the cause and proceeded with the hearing. Plaintiff's attorney appeared and took part in the hearing. The seller was present at the hearing and testified that the selling price had not been agreed upon; and that the listing had been signed in blank.
Section 9818, 2 Comp.Laws 1929, Act No. 57, Pub.Acts 1943, Comp.Laws Supp.1945, § 9818, Stat.Ann.1946 Cum.Supp. § 19.803, covers the subject of suspension or revocation of license. The act also provides that a license may be suspended or revoked for ‘Any other conduct whether of the same or a different character than hereinbefore specified, which constitutes dishonest or unfair dealing.’
The rules and regulations of the commission (real estate division) provide:
‘Any broker or salesman who fails or neglects to abide by the following rules and regulations adopted by the Michigan Corporation and Securities Commission shall be presumed to be guilty of unfair dealing:
‘1. A broker or salesman who obtains a listing shall, at the time of securing such listing, give the party or parties signing such listing a true copy thereof.
‘Each listing agreement shall have set forth in its terms a definite expiration date and shall contain no provision therein requiring the party signing such listing to notify the broker of his intention to cancel such listing after such definite expiration date.’ Mich.Admin.Code 1944, p. 181.
Section 9819, 2 Comp.Laws 1929, Stat.Ann. § 19.804, deals with notice and hearing and provides in part: ‘* * * The findings of fact made by the commission, acting within its powers, shall in the absence of fraud be conclusive, but the supreme court shall have the power to review questions of law involved in any final decision or determination of the commission * * *.’
It is not seriously disputed that the seller did not receive a copy of the agreement until the day following the signing of the same; and that the agreement gave the broker the exclusive right for ninety days from the date of execution ‘and thereafter until you receive from me (seller) a ten days' written notice terminating this agreement.’
There is competent evidence to support the finding of facts by the deputy commissioner and the affirmance of such action by the commission.
It is urged by plaintiff that the commission has no power to make rules and regulations relative to suspension...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination v. Colangelo
...c. 726, § 2), as amended. See also Seaman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Holliston, 340 Mass. 488, 489, 165 N.E.2d 97; Ranke v. Corporation & Sec. Comm., 317 Mich. 304, 310, 26 N.E.2d 898; Roman v. Lobe, 243 N.Y. 51, 54-57, 152 N.E. 461, 50 A.L.R. 1329; Payne v. Volkman, 183 Wis. 412, 419, 198......
-
Herrick Dist. Library v. Library of Michigan
...“ ‘necessary to the due and efficient exercise of the powers expressly granted’ ” by the enabling statute. Ranke v. Corp. & Securities Comm., 317 Mich. 304, 309, 26 N.W.2d 898 (1947) quoting California Drive–in Restaurant Ass'n v. Clark, 22 Cal.2d 287, 302, 140 P.2d 657 (1943). The State Ai......
-
Automotive Service Councils of Michigan v. Secretary of State
..." Department of Natural Resources v. Seaman, supra, 396 Mich. at 309, 240 N.W.2d at 210. In Ranke v. Corporation & Securities Commission, 317 Mich. 304, 307, 26 N.W.2d 898, 899 (1947), the Court upheld a statute authorizing the commission to suspend or revoke real estate broker licenses for......
-
McKibbin v. Michigan Corp. and Securities Commission, 66
...principal vocation. That the commission has the power to adopt rules is not questioned. We so held in Ranke v. Michigan Corporation & Securities Commission, 317 Mich. 304, 26 N.W.2d 898, and in fact in that case we specifically upheld the commission's right to enumerate by rule what conduct......