{
  "id": 2846855,
  "name": "Charles S. Quinlan and Howell N. Tyson, copartners as Quinlan & Tyson, Appellees, v. Mary E. Towle, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Quinlan v. Towle",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,295",
  "first_page": "592",
  "last_page": "593",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 592"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3150,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "sha256": "2c3723f97cce44bad9fcc97fa78187e50ce739c4171047d44b6da5af0879044e",
    "simhash": "1:0b42c4956d1ad1d3",
    "word_count": 530
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles S. Quinlan and Howell N. Tyson, copartners as Quinlan & Tyson, Appellees, v. Mary E. Towle, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank W. Swett, for appellant.",
      "George W. Hess, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles S. Quinlan and Howell N. Tyson, copartners as Quinlan & Tyson, Appellees, v. Mary E. Towle, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,295.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank G. Plain, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed on remittitur.\nOpinion filed March 31, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Charles S. Quinlan and Howell N. Tyson, copartners doing business as Quinlan & Tyson, against Mary E. Towle to recover commissions and certain expenses incurred in procuring a purchaser for real estate for defendant. The title to the property became vested in four heirs of Mrs. E. J. Towle, deceased, of whom defendant was one, each having an undivided one-fourth interest therein. At the time of the transaction in question, one of the heirs had died and her title was vested in her minor children subject to her husband\u2019s dower rights. One Miss Bartelme was the guardian of said children. The defendant had a power of attorney for the management of the property, but not for its sale. One Mrs. Anderson, desiring to purchase the property, was referred by the defendant to plaintiff\u2019s manager, as her agent, who took up and carried on negotiations resulting in a contract of sale, drawn by the manager and signed by the defendant and Mr. and Mrs. Anderson. Underneath defendant\u2019s signature were the words, \u201cAttorney in fact for the estate of Mrs. E. J. Towle, Dec\u2019d.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s recovered a judgment for two hundred and seventy-five dollars, including a bill of forty dollars for a guaranty policy paid for by the plaintiffs, and a claim for two hundred and thirty-five dollars as commissions. From the judgment, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Brokers, \u00a7 33 \u2014right to commissions when principal has no authority to sell. Decisions holding that one contracting to sell real estate he does not own may become liable for commissions for procuring a purchaser are distinguishable from a case where the broker assists his principal in making a contract which he knows his principal has no power to carry out.\n2. Brokers, \u00a7 33 \u2014right to commissions when brokers know of principal's want of authority to sell. In an action to recover commissions for procuring a purchaser of real estate in which the principal and others, some of which were minor heirs, had an interest, held that a judgment for plaintiff could not be sustained, the evidence showing that the plaintiffs knew of the interest of the minor heirs and was chargeable with knowledge of the principal\u2019s want of authority to sell and convey the interests of all the parties, and it appearing that the plaintiffs proceeded in the negotiations not upon the assertion of any claim by the principal that she had authority to convey their interests but upon the contingency of her ability to acquire leave to sell the minors\u2019 interests and to obtain a conveyance from the other tenants in common.\nFrank W. Swett, for appellant.\nGeorge W. Hess, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0592-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 619
}