{
  "id": 2854517,
  "name": "Louis L. Lettiere, Defendant in Error, v. N. L. Blackman and Leonard J. Williams. (N. L. Blackman, Plaintiff in Error.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lettiere v. Blackman",
  "decision_date": "1914-06-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,598",
  "first_page": "336",
  "last_page": "338",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 336"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 3108,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "sha256": "eaabac317c301ef8020ce09dc4fba91f6729418c1249b53ebbfa6c5595145c2b",
    "simhash": "1:5f576b91e148c058",
    "word_count": 516
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louis L. Lettiere, Defendant in Error, v. N. L. Blackman and Leonard J. Williams. (N. L. Blackman, Plaintiff in Error.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Brokers, \u00a7 71 \u2014when defense that plaintiff is not entitled to commissions not available. In an action for commissions on the sale of real estate which plaintiff claimed defendants agreed to apply on the purchase price of lots which plaintiff agreed to purchase, and which defendant\u2019s refused to transfer to plaintiff after a tender of the balance of the purchase price, held that a defense that plaintiff was not entitled to commissions for the reason that he was the purchaser himself could not be urged where the refusal of the tender was not based on that ground.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John A. Swanson, for plaintiff in error; Aaron Heims, of counsel.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis L. Lettiere, Defendant in Error, v. N. L. Blackman and Leonard J. Williams. (N. L. Blackman, Plaintiff in Error.)\nGen. No. 18,598.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles E. Jennings, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 15, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Louis L. Lettiere against N. L. Blackman and Leonard J. Williams in the Municipal Court of Chicago to recover the sum of ninety-five dollars from defendants for commissions on the sale of certain real estate, which sum, as alleged in the statement of claim, defendants agreed to apply on the purchase price of four lots in Clarkdale, which lots plaintiff agreed to buy, but which defendants on request refused to transfer to plaintiff, after tender to defendants of the balance of the purchase price. Blackman alone was served with summons and he entered his appearance. The summons was returned \u201cnot found\u201d as to Williams. The nature of Blackman\u2019s defense was, as disclosed from his affidavit of merits, that he was not jointly liable with Williams to plaintiff in any sum whatsoever, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover any commissions from either of the defendants. The cause was tried before the court without a jury, resulting in a finding of the issues against Blackman and the assessment of plaintiff\u2019s damages at the sum of ninety-five dollars. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment was rendered against Black-man for ninety-five dollars and costs, which judgment he seeks by this writ of error to reverse.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Pabtnebship, \u00a7 252 \u2014when retiring member chargeable as a partner. In an action against two defendants jointly to recover commissions on the sale of real estate, evidence, held, sufficient to charge one of the defendants as a partner though the partnership was by agreement dissolved and notice of such dissolution' published before the transactions with plaintiff, it appearing that the business was continued by the remaining partner in the firm name and that a contract with plaintiff was signed hy both defendants.\nJohn A. Swanson, for plaintiff in error; Aaron Heims, of counsel.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same .topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number,"
  },
  "file_name": "0336-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 364
}