Flood v. Leonard

Appellate Court of Illinois

Flood v. Leonard

44 Ill. App. 113, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 606

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 4, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 Ill. App. 113 (Flood v. Leonard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flood v. Leonard, 44 Ill. App. 113, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 606 (Ill. Ct. App. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Moran, J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment in favor of appellee for $500, for commissions earned by said appellee in finding a customer for the purchase of real estate, at the price and terms on which the property was placed in appellee’s hands by appellant. The case-was tried by the court without a jury and there are no exceptions to the admission or ‘exclusion of evidence, and no-propositions of law were submitted to the court to be held. The only question presented is whether the evidence sustains the finding. There was a conflict as to material issues of fact which that finding settles in favor of appellee. It must be assumed here that the terms of the contract as to commissions were as appellee’s evidence tended to show them. Then the evidence of appellee tended to show that he brought to appellant a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to complete the purchase of appellant’s land on the terms of said sale given to appellee, and that appellant rejected such purchaser and refused to carry out the sale. This was all that it was necessary for appellee to prove to entitle him to recover his commissions. Pratt v. Hotchkiss, 10 Ill. App. 603; Mechera on Agency, Sec. 966. We think the finding of the court fully supported by the evidence and the judgment is free from error and must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Moran, J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment in favor of appellee for $500, for commissions earned by said appellee in finding a customer for the purchase of real estate, at the price and terms on which the property was placed in appellee’s hands by appellant. The case-was tried by the court without a jury and there are no exceptions to the admission or ‘exclusion of evidence, and no-propositions of law were submitted to the court to be held. The only question presented is whether the evidence sustains the finding. There was a conflict as to material issues of fact which that finding settles in favor of appellee. It must be assumed here that the terms of the contract as to commissions were as appellee’s evidence tended to show them. Then the evidence of appellee tended to show that he brought to appellant a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to complete the purchase of appellant’s land on the terms of said sale given to appellee, and that appellant rejected such purchaser and refused to carry out the sale. This was all that it was necessary for appellee to prove to entitle him to recover his commissions. Pratt v. Hotchkiss, 10 Ill. App. 603; Mechera on Agency, Sec. 966. We think the finding of the court fully supported by the evidence and the judgment is free from error and must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Ill. App. 113, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flood-v-leonard-illappct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack