{
  "id": 8501084,
  "name": "Edward C. Wentworth, Trading as Whiteside & Wentworth, Defendant in Error, v. Ales Mann, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wentworth v. Mann",
  "decision_date": "1913-04-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,278",
  "first_page": "621",
  "last_page": "623",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 Ill. App. 621"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        859920
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/37/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5029612
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/41/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 Ill. App. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2469953
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/134/0561-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Ill. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3332652
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/224/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 Ill. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3315986
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/214/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 Ill. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5806360
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/140/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3225388
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 Ill. 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5468325
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/151/0518-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4051,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.938433327150703e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4206708576445963
    },
    "sha256": "f584ed78433c8fe8fbb46b7ce975174c4b55d77751affd4c522e7d3f8a1f3fc4",
    "simhash": "1:956b7c3da62db459",
    "word_count": 692
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:56:36.464744+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward C. Wentworth, Trading as Whiteside & Wentworth, Defendant in Error, v. Ales Mann, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Graves\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant in error began suit in the Municipal Court to recover commissions claimed to have been earned by him under the following contract, viz.:\n\u201cMarch 9th, 1910.\n\"Whiteside & Wentworth,\n140 Dearborn street,\nChicago.\nGENTLEMEN:\nTon are hereby authorized to sell my property, described as 4445 Evanston Ave. at the price of twelve thousand dollars, upon the following terms:\nCash Five Thousand Five Hundred, Balance as per mortgage. Subject pro-rata to taxes and assessments levied subsequent to the year 1909, also special assessments for and to an encumbrance of $6,500 due May, 1910.\nWhen you sell the property, I will furnisli a merchantable abstract of title brought down to date of sale, and will pay you for your services a commission of 2y2 per cent on the price at which the property sold, and in addition y2 of whatever you can realize above my said price.\nYou are to have the exclusive right to sell the property Two months from date and thereafter until written notice.\nApex MaNN, Owner.\nWe hereby accept the above agency and agree to push the sale of the property.\nWhiteside & WeNtwopth.\u201d\nHe recovered a verdict and judgment for $200.\nThe uncontradicted facts are that within two months after this contract was signed defendant in error sold the property in question through a real estate brokerage firm by the name of Young & Johnson, and that-said sale was not made by defendant in error, nor was it made to any customer procured by him or through any instrumentality of his.\nWhatever may be the law in other jurisdictions, it is the settled law in this state that before a real estate broker can recover for commissions earned under a brokerage contract, he must show that he has either sold the property in question, been instrumental in bringing about the sale, or that he has procured a purchaser who was ready, able and willing to purchase it at the stipulated terms. Smith v. Keeler, 151 Ill. 518; Henry v. Stewart, 185 Ill. 448; Swigart v. Hawley, 140 Ill. 186; Bunn v. Keach, 214 Ill. 259; Woolf v. Sullivan, 224 Ill. 509. There is a total lack of any evidence that defendant in error complied with any of the foregoing conditions, but that he did not do so is conceded. This being an action for commissions earned and there being no evidence whatever that he ever earned the commissions claimed, the verdict is contrary to the evidence and the judgment cannot be sustained.\nIf plaintiff in error has violated his agreement with defendant in error and the snit had been brought to recover damages for such breach, it might well be he would have been liable in damages for an amount equal to or perhaps exceeding the amount of the judgment in this case, but that is not the case made by the pleadings. In a suit to recover earnings under an executed contract recovery cannot be had for damages for its breach. Dickson v. Owens, 134 Ill. App. 561; Metzen v. Wyatt, 41 Ill. App. 487; Gilbert v. Coons, 37 Ill. App. 448.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Graves"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. H. Chadwick, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John C. Everett, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward C. Wentworth, Trading as Whiteside & Wentworth, Defendant in Error, v. Ales Mann, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,278.\n1. Brokers \u2014 when may recover commissions. A real estate broker cannot recover for commissions earned under a brokerage contract unless he shows that he sold the property in question or was instrumental in bringing about the sale, or procured a purchaser ready, able and willing to purchase at the stipulated terms.\n2. Actions and defenses \u2014 no recovery for breach, of contract in action for earnings thereunder. Where action is brought to recover earnings under an executed contract, no recovery can be had for damages for its breach. ,\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William H. Hinebaugu, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 9, 1913.\nW. H. Chadwick, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn C. Everett, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0621-01",
  "first_page_order": 639,
  "last_page_order": 641
}