{
  "id": 2848175,
  "name": "Bernard Brozowski, Plaintiff in Error, v. Stanislaw Grohocki, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brozowski v. Grohocki",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,055",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "392",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 391"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 2078,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "9838cb3ff10f614cf4c1159a76805ae9dc5130af624b6a30ed8ed3d4318c8a4e",
    "simhash": "1:da42ab99832f41cf",
    "word_count": 354
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bernard Brozowski, Plaintiff in Error, v. Stanislaw Grohocki, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David & Zillman, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Lee & Lee, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bernard Brozowski, Plaintiff in Error, v. Stanislaw Grohocki, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 19,055.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Peed C. Hill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 10, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Bernard Brozowski against Stanislaw Grohocki for commissions alleged to be due in effecting the sale of a piece of real estate. The plaintiff introduced in evidence a partly executed contract, purporting to be between defendant and John Svatik and Eva Svatik, in and by which the defendant was to convey to John and Eva Svatik certain property in Chicago for certain property said to be owned by John and Eva Svatik in Indiana. In the form of the contract it was provided that defendant should pay plaintiff one hundred and fifty dollars and the other parties to pay him two hundred dollars. This form of contract was signed by the defendant and John Svatik, but was not signed by Eva Svatik. Judgment was rendered against plaintiff for costs. To reverse the judgment, plaintiff brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nBrokers, \u00a7 88 \u2014when proof insufficient to show right to commissioners. In an action to recover commissions ior affecting a sale of real estate, it appeared that the defendant and two persons procured by plaintiff entered in what purported to be a contract for an exchange of lands which was signed \u2019 by the defendant and one of the persons procured by the plaintiff, but not by the other. Held that plaintiff was not entitled to recover where it appeared that the two persons were tenants in common of the land to be exchanged, and there was no attempt to prove that the person not signing the contract was ready and willing to perform, except by the introduction in evidence of the partly executed agreement.\nDavid & Zillman, for plaintiff in error.\nLee & Lee, for defendant in error.\nSeo Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 417,
  "last_page_order": 418
}