{
  "id": 2842647,
  "name": "Robert White et al., Appellants, v. Annie Rezek and Harry A. Rezek, Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. Rezek",
  "decision_date": "1913-12-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,643",
  "first_page": "12",
  "last_page": "13",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 12"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 1885,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "sha256": "920e4351abb355fb46e51e673176c7a46b9241a7cf194f35c43090cdbefa4773",
    "simhash": "1:d17c4d04100c326d",
    "word_count": 317
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert White et al., Appellants, v. Annie Rezek and Harry A. Rezek, Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice F. A. Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Brokers, \u00a7 50 \u2014terms of sale must he accepted before offer is withdraion. Where a broker representing the seller of land conducts negotiations with both the purchaser and the seller and there is no unconditional acceptance of all the terms of the sale before the offer of sale is withdrawn, the broker is not entitled to commissions.\n2. Brokers, \u00a7 40 \u2014when willingness of purchaser to accept terms offered is not shown. Parties to a contract of sale were bargaining upon the understanding that a written and binding contract would have to be drawn up and signed by the parties, stating the terms of the contract in full, before the broker could claim commissions. There was a dispute as to who should pay a special assessment and the broker offered to pay the amount and deduct it from his commissions, but neither party acceded to the proposition. The broker prepared a contract that both parties refused to sign. Held, there was no meeting of the minds between the parties and the broker was not entitled to commissions.\nClark, J., dissenting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice F. A. Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gann, Peaks & Townley, for appellants.",
      "Lewis F. Jacobson, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert White et al., Appellants, v. Annie Rezek and Harry A. Rezek, Appellees.\nGen. No. 18,643.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 2, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Robert White, Roy B. Tabor and J. P. Strickland, copartners trading as White & Tabor, against Annie Rezek and Harry A. Rezek to recover commissions for negotiating a sale of real estate. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.\nGann, Peaks & Townley, for appellants.\nLewis F. Jacobson, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0012-01",
  "first_page_order": 36,
  "last_page_order": 37
}