{
  "id": 5370591,
  "name": "William Noonen, Appellee, v. Theodore Gebhardt, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Noonen v. Gebhardt",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 5,838",
  "first_page": "276",
  "last_page": "277",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 276"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 2952,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41041948777708664
    },
    "sha256": "eeb06e24e4ca8cdf507e9160bb6bc9fe3724a1bbf504de279ae0bae1eb335318",
    "simhash": "1:8387b315179b221b",
    "word_count": 488
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Noonen, Appellee, v. Theodore Gebhardt, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Carnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Brokers, \u00a7 88 \u2014when recovery of commissions sustained by the evidence. In an action for commissions for selling a farm, it appeared that defendant had listed his farm with a certain real estate agent who interested the plaintiff, another agent engaged in bringing purchasers of farm lands from other parts of the State, who visited defendant\u2019s farm and plaintiff claimed that while there defendant agreed with him that if he should affect a sale he would allow him anything received in excess of one hundred and twenty-five dollars per acre. The farm was afterwards sold to a purchaser produced by plaintiff for one hundred and thirty-five dollars an acre. Defendant denied that he made any such agreement or any agreement whatever for commissions with plaintiff. Held that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff was sustained by the evidence.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 265 \u2014when permitting witness to testify from memorandum not prejudicial. Permitting a witness to testify that a fact of which he spoke was fixed in his mind by his making a written memorandum of it shortly after it occurred, held not prejudicial error where the memorandum was not offered in evidence.\n3. Instructions, \u00a7 134 \u2014when construed as directing jury to base finding on the evidence. An instruction complained of as failing to direct the jury that their belief must be based on the evidence, held to fall within the rule that \u201ca requirement in the first part of an instruction that the jury must base their findings upon the evidence applies and extends to all subsequent clauses in the instruction, and it is unnecessary in each of the succeeding sections to inform the jury that they must find from a preponderance of the evidence.\u201d\n4. Appear and error, \u00a7 450 \u2014when objection to admission of evidence not preserved. Admission of incompetent evidence, without objection, cannot be complained of on appeal.\n5. Appear and error, \u00a7 1507 \u2014\u2022when compelling answer on cross-examination not prejudicial. In an action for commissions on a sale of a farm, held not harmful error to require defendant, on cross-examination, to answer whether he listed his farm with other agents to be sold for a certain price where he denied that he did so.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Carnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brooks & Brooks, for appellant.",
      "N. G. Van Sant and McRoberts, Morgan & Zimmerman, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Noonen, Appellee, v. Theodore Gebhardt, Appellant.\nGen. No. 5,838.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. Fbank D. Ramsay, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by William Noonen against Theodore Gebhardt to recover commissions for selling a farm. From a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nBrooks & Brooks, for appellant.\nN. G. Van Sant and McRoberts, Morgan & Zimmerman, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0276-01",
  "first_page_order": 322,
  "last_page_order": 323
}