From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jaques v. Smith

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jul 23, 1975
62 Mich. App. 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)

Opinion

Docket No. 21972.

Decided July 23, 1975. Leave to appeal applied for.

Appeal from Wayne, Ronald L. Olzark, J. Submitted June 19, 1975, at Detroit. (Docket No. 21972.) Decided July 23, 1975. Leave to appeal applied for.

Complaint by Leonard C. Jaques against Howard F. Smith, Jr., individually and as co-fiduciary of the estate of Helen S. Smith, deceased, Johnstone Johnstone, Inc., and Windell Birdsall for specific performance of a contract to purchase realty and damages for tortious interference with contract rights. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Leonard C. Jaques, P.C. (by Robert E. Swickle), for plaintiff.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock Stone (by Carl H. von Ende), for Howard F. Smith, Jr.

Manuel Zechman, for Johnstone Johnstone, Inc., and Windell Birdsall.

Before: T.M. BURNS, P.J., and QUINN and M.J. KELLY, JJ.


Plaintiff brought suit, alleging the existence of a contract to purchase realty and seeking specific performance thereof. He also sought damages for a claimed conspiracy to tortiously interfere with contract rights. The trial court granted accelerated judgment for defendant, GCR 1963, 116.1(5), finding that the claim was barred by the statute of frauds, MCLA 566.108; MSA 26.908. Plaintiff brought this appeal.

The record and briefs disclose that there is no contract, note or memorandum in writing and signed by the party by whom the sale is to be made, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized in writing. Therefore, the contract alleged is void, MCLA 566.108; MSA 26.908. The fact that plaintiff's signed offer was witnessed by a real estate agent does not constitute an acceptance and it is patently ridiculous to so urge.

Plaintiff's resort to MCLA 566.110; MSA 26.910 is of no avail. That statute permits the compelling of specific performance "in cases of part performance of [agreements barred by the statute of frauds]". In legal contemplation, the acts of plaintiff were preliminary to the formation of a contract to purchase and did not constitute part performance of an existing contract. Coronet Development Co v FSW, Inc, 379 Mich. 302, 310; 150 N.W.2d 809 (1967), Daugherty v Poppen, 316 Mich. 430, 439; 25 N.W.2d 580 (1947).

Finally, the trial court correctly granted accelerated judgment on the conspiracy claim. In Williams v De Man, 7 Mich. App. 71, 76-77; 151 N.W.2d 247 (1967), we held:

"Plaintiff's assignment of error alleging that he is entitled to recover damages from the intervening defendant for wrongful inducement of breach of contract, is also fatally affected by the absence of a binding contract. `In actions for procuring the breach of contract, the contract concerned must have been valid.' 30 Am Jur, Interference, § 23, p 74. Also see, 84 ALR 48 and 26 ALR2d 1242."

Affirmed. Costs to appellees.


Summaries of

Jaques v. Smith

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jul 23, 1975
62 Mich. App. 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
Case details for

Jaques v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:JAQUES v SMITH

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Jul 23, 1975

Citations

62 Mich. App. 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
233 N.W.2d 839

Citing Cases

Northern Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Henderson Bros.

Where there is an allegation that a contracting party and a stranger to the contract have conspired to cause…

Eerdmans v. Maki

Finally, a contract for the sale of land must also satisfy the statute of frauds. MCL 566.108; MSA 26.908;…