Case ID: ill-app_210/html/0118-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Thomson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward F. Keebler, trading as E. F. Keebler & Company, Appellant, v. A. J. Franks, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 23,322.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Bbokebs, § 61
      
      —when disobedience of instructions does not worh forfeiture of commissions. Where the owner of certain premises employed a real estate broker to negotiate a lease for the premises at a certain increased rental, promising to pay him a commission therefor, with specific instructions not to approach the present tenant in the matter, whom he wished to retain if possible but wished first to secure another in case the present tenant would not pay the increased rental, and the broker disregarded the instructions and approached the. tenant and secured his renewal of the lease at the increased rental, held that the broker did not forfeit his commission.
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of .Chicago; the Hon. Chaeles N. Gooditow, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
    Reversed and judgment here.
    Opinion filed March 13, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Edward, F. Keebler, trading as E. F. Keebler & Company, plaintiff, against A. J. Franksj defendant, to recover commissions alleged to be due for services rendered in negotiating a lease of certain property. From a judgment for defendant, on trial before the court' without a jury, plaintiff appeals.
    Sabath, Stafford & Sabath, for appellant; Charles B. Stafford and Thomas M. Zasadil, Jr., of counsel.
    Litzinger, Healy & Reid, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.