Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0290-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice O’Connor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George J. Kappes, Appellee, v. E. R. Bacon, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,212. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Brokers, § 93
      
      —what are questions for jury in action for commissions. Evidence held sufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the questions whether defendant employed plaintiff as a broker for the sale of defendant’s real estate, whether plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale involved, and whether plaintiff had abandoned the negotiations commenced by him and defendant had thereafter made the sale, in an action to recover a commission on the sale.
    2. Brokers, § 92*—what is sufficient proof of value of services. The uncontradicted evidence of plaintiff that he was a real estate broker and had been engaged in that business for eleven or twelve years, and that the usual, reasonable and customary broker’s fee in that place for similar transactions was 5 per cent, of the purchase price, was sufficient proof of the value of plaintiff’s services for which he claimed commissions, in an action to recover commissions.
    
      . Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry Olson, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 28, 1917.
    Rehearing denied January 10, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by George J. Kappes, plaintiff, against E. R. Bacon, defendant, to recover $216.60 claimed as compiissions on a sale of real estate. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Moses, • Rosenthal & Kennedy, for appellant; Hirsoh E. Soble, of counsel.
    Rathje, Lawlor & Connor, for appellee; Gerard A. Connor, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when statement of claim is sufficient. A statement of claim in an action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago, is sufficient if it merely states the account or nature of plaintiff’s demand and gives such information as will reasonably inform the defendant of the nature of the case.

4. Brokers, § 4*-—non-necessity of cleric "being licensed. It is not necessary under the ordinances of the City of Chicago that the hired clerk of a regularly licensed real estate broker who represents his employer in securing the listing of property for sale should be licensed.

5. Brokers, § 84*—when admission in evidence of listirig card is not reversible error. The admission in evidence, in an action to recover a commission on a sale of real estate, of a listing card made by plaintiff as to defendant’s property, giving information as to its sale, held not reversible error.