{
  "id": 2732587,
  "name": "George G. Greenburg, Defendant in Error, v. Nyberg Automobile Works, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Greenburg v. Nyberg Automobile Works",
  "decision_date": "1911-06-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,647",
  "first_page": "504",
  "last_page": "505",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "162 Ill. App. 504"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "153 Ill. 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3029962
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/153/0525-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 1959,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3757049156147714
    },
    "sha256": "7d745f800433aa428fb4c6eb1f7b2d430a201feb0ff7487add6ca02ac4048867",
    "simhash": "1:b2ea2527128e3a59",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:35.474007+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George G. Greenburg, Defendant in Error, v. Nyberg Automobile Works, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe only substantial point urged in objection to the judgment of the Municipal Court in this case is that although the suit was for a balance due for commissions for the sale of two automobiles to customers who were brought to the defendant by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had no broker\u2019s license under the Municipal Code of Chicago. Therefore, it is maintained by the defendant, the transaction was unlawful, and no claim for commissions could be upheld.\nIncidentally the defendant insists that the court improperly sustained an objection to the question put on cross-examination to the plaintiff\u2014\u201cHow many automobiles have you sold in the city of Chicago ?\u201d\nThis last point would be of more force if almost immediately afterward the question had not been repeated and answered without objection.\nThe answer to it and to connected interrogatories disclosed the fact that the transactions involved in the suit were the only ones of the kind the plaintiff had ever been connected with in Chicago.\nThe ordinance relied on by the plaintiff is a regulatory and revenue measure, referring to an occupation, not to isolated transactions like those at bar. O\u2019Neill v. Sinclair, 153 Ill. 525.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William A. Jennings, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Joseph Cummins, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George G. Greenburg, Defendant in Error, v. Nyberg Automobile Works, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 15,647.\nAssumpsit\u2014when absence of Ueense mil not preclude recovery of commissions. If there is an ordinance regulating an occupation and requiring those engaged therein to be licensed, a recovery of commissions may be had by one not regularly engaged in such occupation who merely made an isolated sale.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William W. Maxwell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 19, 1911.\nWilliam A. Jennings, for plaintiff in error.\nJoseph Cummins, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0504-01",
  "first_page_order": 524,
  "last_page_order": 525
}