This case involved a dispute over alleged trespass by the Saginaw County Drain Commissioner during construction of the Weiss street drain on property purchased by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought damages for unauthorized entry and business disruption beyond any claimed right-of-way, while the defendant contended that a prior release of right-of-way by the plaintiffs' predecessors constituted a valid easement. The trial court determined that the release was a conveyance requiring recording with the register of deeds to bind subsequent good-faith purchasers, and a jury awarded the plaintiffs $16,500 after finding no such recording or actual notice. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding the unrecorded easement void against the plaintiffs and concluding that statutory treble damages provisions did not apply to the business interruption claims at issue.
This case involves a paternity complaint under Michigan's paternity act, where the plaintiff sought a finding of parentage, support for the child until age 18, confinement expenses, and attorney fees from the defendant father. The trial court admitted paternity, ordered a lump-sum support payment of $2,000 over five years plus confinement costs, but denied attorney fees, basing the support on a reduced percentage of divorce guidelines. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute requires support orders to provide for ongoing payments until the child reaches 18 without arbitrary limitations or early termination, and that attorney fees are not authorized when the mother hires her own counsel.
This case is a stockholders' derivative suit brought by plaintiff Futernick, a one-third owner of Concord Builders, Inc., against Statler Builders, Inc., and its owners Faggen and Tutnick (who also held majority control of Concord). The suit alleged that Statler owed Concord funds for overhead and management services related to a land development project with the Woodward Syndicate, and that Faggen and Tutnick breached their fiduciary duties as Concord directors by failing to enforce the claim due to their conflicting interests in Statler. The circuit court found Statler indebted to Concord, imposed a constructive trust for $15,338, and ruled that demand on the board was futile given the conflict; it also reinstated Statler as a defendant after an initial dismissal. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record supported findings of abuse of trust and that the procedural reinstatement caused no prejudice to Statler. The court emphasized the minimum requirements for a derivative action—proof of fraud or breach plus futile demand—and found those met here.
This case was a negligence action brought by the plaintiff for injuries sustained in a December 1958 automobile collision with a school bus making a left turn on US-2 in Delta County. A jury awarded the plaintiff $14,563.90 in damages, which the trial court upheld by entering judgment and denying a motion for new trial. On appeal, the defendants argued that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, that newly discovered eyewitness testimony warranted a new trial, and that errors occurred in the jury instructions. The court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that ample evidence supported findings of negligence by the bus driver and lack of contributory negligence by the plaintiff, that the new evidence was cumulative and unlikely to alter the result, and that the charge as a whole contained no reversible error.
This case involved a real estate broker suing for a 10% commission on the sale of a farm, based on an exclusive listing agreement that had expired but contained a clause requiring payment if the property was sold by the owner within six months to a buyer negotiated with during the term. The farm was instead sold through a different broker after the original agreement ended. The trial court found the clause's reference to a sale "by the owner" ambiguous, admitted parol evidence about the parties' understanding, and interpreted it to exclude sales arranged by other agents. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the defendants, concluding that the sale did not trigger the commission because it was made by another broker rather than directly by the owner, and resolving the ambiguity against the broker who drafted the agreement.
The case was a tort suit by dairy operator Bahr against Miller Brothers Creamery and three former route drivers, alleging an illegal conspiracy to induce breach of the drivers' non-compete agreements after Bahr switched milk suppliers. A jury awarded Bahr $40,000, but the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling there was no evidence of fraud, coercion, or any unlawful act. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed dismissal as to the creamery, finding no support for a conspiracy claim, but reversed as to the individual drivers because the record contained evidence from which a jury could find an agreement to evade contractual obligations, and ordered a new trial due to the excessive verdict.