Case ID: ill-app_195/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Pam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harry A. Rezek, Plaintiff in Error, v. Fred Grosch et al., Defendants in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,623.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. George J. Cowing, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 6, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Suit by Harry A. Rezek against Fred Grosch, W. L. Hoffman and Oscar Heineman to recover for the value of services alleged to have been rendered in connection with the sale of certain realty situated at the southwest corner of Armitage and Fairfield avenues in the city of Chicago. Upon the trial before the court without a jury, the' plaintiff dismissed as to the defendants. W. L. Hoffman and Oscar Heineman, and the case having proceeded against Grosch alone, the court found the issues for the defendant, in whose favor judgment for costs was rendered, to reverse which plaintiff has sued out this writ of error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 1242
      
      —when party cannot complain of dismissal. An order of dismissal as to one defendant cannot be reviewed when such dismissal was entered on the motion of the party complaining.
    2. Appeal and error, § 1414
      
      —when finding of court will not he disturbed on appeal. In an action for commissions, a conclusion of the trial court that a real estate broker had not proven his case by a preponderance of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, it appearing that such conclusion was not clearly and manifestly against the weight of evidence.
    Gustave Neuberg, for plaintiff in error.
    Bowersock & Stilwell, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.