71 Mich. 104 | Mich. | 1888
Plaintiff, a business corporation, acting as a real-estate broker, sued Henry Stephens for com
The court ruled out all testimony, this as well as the rest, by holding that there could be no recovery except on a written contract. For this ruling no authority was cited, and there is no principle which sustains it. Agreements for such services do not come within any provision ■of the statute of frauds. Had the testimony of the witnesses, not corporation agents, been allowed to be given, and to stand, the plaintiff would undoubtedly have recovered, as it made out a sufficient case of employment, and plaintiff could have at least recovered on a quantum meruit, if the precise terms of the contract were shut out. This testimony should not have been ruled out, and what was admitted should have stood.
As there is-no likelihood that, on a new trial, there can be any serious difficulty, we do not think it desirable,
The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.