From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dorow v. Smith

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jun 3, 1929
225 N.W. 533 (Mich. 1929)

Opinion

Docket No. 22, Calendar No. 34,029.

Submitted April 12, 1929.

Decided June 3, 1929. Rehearing denied September 4, 1929.

Error to Wayne; Martin (William H.), J., presiding. Submitted April 12, 1929. (Docket No. 22, Calendar No. 34,029.) Decided June 3, 1929. Rehearing denied September 4, 1929.

Case by August Dorow and another against Eben C. Smith for damages for fraud perpetrated in the sale of real estate. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

Atkinson, O'Brien Clark ( Frank W. Atkinson, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Goodenough, Voorheis, Long Ryan, for defendant.


Facts necessary to decision of this case are fully stated in Stuart v. Dorow, 216 Mich. 591. There Stuart filed bill for specific performance against August Dorow, and Matilda Dorow, and had decree. The defense attempted and held without merit was, quoting from the opinion:

"Defendants sought to evade the terms of the contract by claiming that plaintiff and Eben C. Smith, who was acting for Stuart, made false representations to them as to the value of the land, and, that Smith, who was pretending to represent defendants, did not disclose to them that this and adjoining lands were being purchased for a contemplated suburban village with rapid transportation service to Detroit via the Pere Marquette railway."

In this case the Dorows brought an action for damages for fraud, above indicated, against Smith and had verdict, but, on decision of a reserved motion to direct, defendant had judgment, and plaintiffs bring error. The trial judge gave a number of reasons for ordering judgment. It is not necessary to consider more than one, namely,

"Because the plaintiffs have failed to show fraud or bad faith on the part of the defendant."

That defendant was not guilty of fraud toward plaintiffs is clearly shown, as a matter of law, in the statements and conclusions set forth in the opinion above cited, which we here adopt as applicable to this case.

It follows that the judgment is affirmed.

NORTH, C.J., and FEAD, FELLOWS, WIEST, McDONALD, POTTER, and SHARPE, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Dorow v. Smith

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jun 3, 1929
225 N.W. 533 (Mich. 1929)
Case details for

Dorow v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:DOROW v. SMITH

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Jun 3, 1929

Citations

225 N.W. 533 (Mich. 1929)
225 N.W. 533