Case Name: Nicholas Nudelman, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. B. Haffenberg, Defendant in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1914-02-02
Citations: 185 Ill. App. 91
Docket Number: Gen. No. 18,384
Parties: Nicholas Nudelman, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. B. Haffenberg, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 91–92

Head Matter:
Nicholas Nudelman, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. B. Haffenberg, Defendant in Error.
Gen. No. 18,384.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habry Olson, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed February 2, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Nicholas Nudelman, doing business as Nudehnan & Company, against C. B. Haffenberg to recover commissions as a real estate broker for procuring a purchaser for certain real estate. From a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a directed verdict, plaintiff brings error.
Blum & Blum, for plaintiff in error.
B. B. Jampolis, for defendant in error.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Baker
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Brokers, § 6 —persons liable for commissions. Where a person employing a real estate broker does not profess to represent another hut makes the contract for himself alone, he is liable to the broker for commissions in case the broker finds a purchaser at the price and on the terms stated in the contract.
2. Brokers, § 93 —when direction of verdict for defendant is error. In an action to recover commissions for procuring a purchaser for real estate, where the evidence tended to show that plaintiff was employed by the defendant who did not profess to he acting as agent for another; that the plaintiff procured purchasers who made a deposit on a written contract with defendant, but the contract was afterwards cancelled at the request of one of the purchasers; and that the defendant thereafter sold the property at the same price to a third person, who immediately conveyed a half interest therein to one of the original purchasers and later conveyed to him the other half interest, held that a direction of a verdict in favor of defendant was error.