{
  "id": 2842462,
  "name": "Fred C. Rounds and Albert H. Wetten, Appellants, v. Victoria Hotel Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rounds v. Victoria Hotel Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-01-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,365",
  "first_page": "500",
  "last_page": "501",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 500"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 2098,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.666970501906556e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29287441082472376
    },
    "sha256": "b3b9572034b8645141dd66b4b19b932dd5cba80532e28eb38948bd54c54f64e0",
    "simhash": "1:96dad3a654a8865b",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fred C. Rounds and Albert H. Wetten, Appellants, v. Victoria Hotel Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Eddy, Wetten & Pegler, for appellants; William H. Dieterich and Howard M. Harpel, of counsel.",
      "Hopkins, Peffers & Hopkins, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fred C. Rounds and Albert H. Wetten, Appellants, v. Victoria Hotel Company, Appellee.\nGen. No. 18,365.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jambs C. Mast\u00edn, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1912.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 12, 1914.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Brokers, \u00a7 88 \u2014when judgment for principal in action for commission not sustained, by the evidence. In an action for commissions for procuring a lessee for defendant\u2019s premises, a judgment in favor of defendant held not sustained by the evidence, it appearing that .the plaintiffs procured a customer, that a commission was agreed upon and that the premises were afterwards leased to such customer by the principal through another agent.\n2. Brokers, \u00a7 48 \u2014when broker is procuring cause of final consummation with customer. Where a real estate broker produces a customer and continues the negotiations he will be considered as the procuring cause of the final consummation with the customer, although the negotiations may be completed by the principal or through another party.\n3. Brokers, \u00a7 84 \u2014when conversation between broker and prospective customer admissible. In an action to recover a commission for procuring a customer for leasing defendant\u2019s premises, a conversation between the customer and the' plaintiffs held admissible for the purpose of showing that the customer had not abandoned the leasing.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Fred C. Bounds and Albert H. Wetten, doing business as Bounds & Wetten, against Victoria Hotel Company, a corporation, to recover a commission for procuring a customer for defendant to lease certain premises belonging to defendant. The case was tried by the court without a jury. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal.\nEddy, Wetten & Pegler, for appellants; William H. Dieterich and Howard M. Harpel, of counsel.\nHopkins, Peffers & Hopkins, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0500-01",
  "first_page_order": 524,
  "last_page_order": 525
}