Case Name: J. F. Comstock, Appellee, v. J. H. Keith and A. F. Keith, Appellants
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1913-12-27
Citations: 185 Ill. App. 89
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. F. Comstock, Appellee, v. J. H. Keith and A. F. Keith, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 89–90

Head Matter:
J. F. Comstock, Appellee, v. J. H. Keith and A. F. Keith, Appellants.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mason county; the Hon. Albert Akers, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed December 27, 1913.
Statement of the Case.
Action by J. F. Comstock against J. H. Keith and A. F. Keith to recover for services rendered in accompanying certain persons to Canada and procuring them to purchase four hundred and eighty acres of Canadian lands. The defendants were real estate agents for the land, and plaintiff, who was engaged in the real estate business, claims he performed the services at the request of the defendants. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for four hundred and eighty dollars defendants appeal.
I. B. Brown and Joseph E. Barnes, for appellants.
Q-. E. Nelson and Clayton J. Barber, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV. same topic and section- number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Thompson
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Brokers, § 88 —when verdict in favor of subagent sustained by the evidence. In an action against real estate agents to recover for services rendered in procuring certain persons as purchasers of Canadian lands at the request of the defendants, where the defendants denied that they ever made such request, a verdict for plaintiff held sustained by the evidence.
2. Brokers, § 85 —admissibility of evidence. In an action by a real estate agent to recover for services in procuring for defendants, real estate agents, persons to purchase Canadian lands, permitting plaintiff to testify that he assisted such persons at the request of defendants in procuring loans, held not prejudicial error.