Huss v. Ford

Appellate Court of Illinois

Huss v. Ford

197 Ill. App. 199

DecidedDecember 1, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 197 Ill. App. 199 (Huss v. Ford) 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

Huss v. Ford, 197 Ill. App. 199 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Principal and agent, § 69*—when agent not entitled to recover commission, from both parties. An agent who is given power to examine property, to determine the advisability of an exchange, and to bring the parties together may not recover commissions from both parties. 3. Evidence, § 322*—when parol evidence inadmissible to vary terms of contract. As between a party to a contract and his agent executing it in his name, where the terms of such contract are definite and certain, parol evidence cannot be admitted to vary its terms. 4. Evidence, § 322*—when parol evidence inadmissible to vary contract for payment of commissions. In an action by a real estate agent against his principal to recover on a note given in payment of commissions, the plaintiff cannot show by parol that money stipulated in a contract for the exchange of property entered into by him as agent in the name of his principal, to be paid to the plaintiff by the other party to the trade as brokerage fees, was in fact, to be paid and was received for and on account of another party.

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

Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Principal and agent, § 69*—when agent not entitled to recover commission, from both parties. An agent who is given power to examine property, to determine the advisability of an exchange, and to bring the parties together may not recover commissions from both parties. 3. Evidence, § 322*—when parol evidence inadmissible to vary terms of contract. As between a party to a contract and his agent executing it in his name, where the terms of such contract are definite and certain, parol evidence cannot be admitted to vary its terms. 4. Evidence, § 322*—when parol evidence inadmissible to vary contract for payment of commissions. In an action by a real estate agent against his principal to recover on a note given in payment of commissions, the plaintiff cannot show by parol that money stipulated in a contract for the exchange of property entered into by him as agent in the name of his principal, to be paid to the plaintiff by the other party to the trade as brokerage fees, was in fact, to be paid and was received for and on account of another party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 Ill. App. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huss-v-ford-illappct-1915.