{
  "id": 2852275,
  "name": "Abraham Silverman and Samuel Silverman, Defendants in Error, v. Lena Kromer, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Silverman v. Kromer",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,171",
  "first_page": "400",
  "last_page": "401",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 400"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 1998,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "cfa70741258bc77eecb2f62b77e541436f768ee446f37b8fe9bfc3209b0150fe",
    "simhash": "1:fe9fd8b1718a0a9d",
    "word_count": 324
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Abraham Silverman and Samuel Silverman, Defendants in Error, v. Lena Kromer, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shaeffer & Kompel, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for defendants in error; Joseph W. Moses, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Abraham Silverman and Samuel Silverman, Defendants in Error, v. Lena Kromer, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,171.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. David Sullivan, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 10, 1914.\nRehearing denied March 24, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in the Municipal Court by Abraham Silver-man and Samuel Silverman against Lena Kromer to recover commissions as real estate brokers. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bbokebs, \u00a7 88 \u2014when evidence insufficient to sustain recovery of commissions. In an action in the Municipal Court for commissions, where an allegation in the statement of claim that plaintiff had produced a purchaser for defendant\u2019s property who was ready, willing and able to buy the property on the terms fixed by defendant was unsupported by the evidence, a finding for plaintiff is erroneous.\n2. Appeal and ebbor, \u00a7 1034 \u2014when court rules not judicially noticed on review. The court on review will not take judicial notice of rules of the Municipal Court, same not being shown by the record.\nPlaintiffs attempted to excuse their failure to prove that they had procured a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase defendant\u2019s property on defendant\u2019s terms, as alleged in their statement of claim, on the ground that such allegation was not denied in the affidavit of defense and that under the rules of the Municipal Court allegations in the statement of claim not denied specifically or by necessary implication in the affidavit of merits are admitted; but the rules referred to were not contained in the record.\nShaeffer & Kompel, for plaintiffs in error.\nMoses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for defendants in error; Joseph W. Moses, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0400-01",
  "first_page_order": 426,
  "last_page_order": 427
}