Case ID: ill-app_187/html/0266-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Albert Bolla, Defendant in Error, v. M. E. Martin, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,683.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. David Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
    Reversed.
    Opinion filed June 9, 1914.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    Brokers, § 60
      
      —when ’broker’s concealment of price and of real purchaser forfeits right to commissions. Where a broker authorized to sell property for $1,600, out of which he was to receive $75 for a commission, sells the same for $1,700, but reported to his principal that he had sold it for $1,600 to a person who was the broker’s wife, giving her maiden name, and the principal repudiated the sale, held that the broker was not entitled to a commission.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Albert Bolla against M. E. Martin to recover a commission for the alleged sale of two lots in Detroit, Michigan, owned by defendant and his wife. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendant brings' error.
    The contract is expressed in certain letters written by the defendant in which he finally authorized Bolla to sell the two lots for $1,600, out of which the agent was to be paid a commission of $75. Bolla made a sale of the two lots to Detroit parties at $850 each, or $1,700 for the two lots, but reported to the defendant that he sold the two lots for $1,600 to Emma Pavella, without disclosing that said Emma Pavella was his wife that being her maiden name. Bolla sent to defendant $50 to apply on the contract and told defendant to hurry up the contract. Defendant, becoming suspicious repudiated the sale, sent back the $50 to the agent and Bolla thereupon commenced this action.
    N. J. Shupe, for plaintiff in error.
    Culver, Andrews & King, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and. section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.