{
  "id": 2855464,
  "name": "Albert Rothbaum et al., copartners as Rothbaum & Astrahan, Appellees, v. Samuel Solomon et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rothbaum v. Solomon",
  "decision_date": "1914-06-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen No. 19,329",
  "first_page": "338",
  "last_page": "340",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 338"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3598,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30550391161801327
    },
    "sha256": "f3376374de23d9238bb66f60ab33c1bd23c6daa006a0540e2610779e2d7168c2",
    "simhash": "1:82e8a834d20fb282",
    "word_count": 596
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Albert Rothbaum et al., copartners as Rothbaum & Astrahan, Appellees, v. Samuel Solomon et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Appeal and ebrob, \u00a7 1520*-\u2014when direction of verdict for an excessive amount harmless. Error of court in directing a verdict for plaintiff for an amount not warranted by the evidence cannot be complained of where the amount was corrected by a remittitur and judgment was entered for the proper amount.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harry C. Diamond and James F. Hutchison, for appellants.",
      "Perlman & Rosenberg, for appellees; Samuel Plame, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Albert Rothbaum et al., copartners as Rothbaum & Astrahan, Appellees, v. Samuel Solomon et al., Appellants.\nGen No. 19,329.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Isaac Hudson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 15, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Albert Rothbaum and Handel Astrahan, copartners trading as Rothbaum & Astrahan, against Samuel Solomon and Sarah Solomon, his wife, and Horris Solomon and Sarah Solomon, his wife, to recover commissions alleged to be due the plaintiffs for negotiating an exchange of real estate for defendants. The case was tried by a jury. The defendants filed a joint plea of the general issue, but at the time of the trial none of them were present in court and no evidence was introduced in their behalf. The court instructed the jury to find the issues for the plaintiffs and to assess plaintiffs\u2019 damages at six hundred dollars. Subsequently, during the argument on a motion by defendants for a new trial; the plaintiffs, at the suggestion of the court, entered a remittitur of four hundred dollars, and the court thereupon refused to grant a new trial and entered judgment against the defendants for two hundred dollars. To reverse the judgment, defendants appeal.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Continuance, \u00a7 10 \u2014when denial of motion not an abuse of discretion. Refusal of court to grant a motion made by defendants\u2019 attorney for a continuance when the case was called for trial on the ground that he had learned only the evening before that the case would be called for trial and that he had been unable to communicate with his clients as they were out of the city, held not an abuse of the court\u2019s discretion where no affidavits were then presented making any showing as to diligence or as to a meritorious defense.\n2. Bbokebs, \u00a7 93*\u2014when direction of verdict for commissions not improper. In an action to recover commissions for negotiating an exchange of real estate for defendants, the giving of an instruction directing a verdict for plaintiffs, held not improper, where no evidence was offered by defendants, and by the terms of the contract, which it was admitted by defendants\u2019 affidavit of defense was executed by them, a certain sum was to become due plaintiffs though the deal was not consummated, provided such failure.of consummation was due to the fault of defendant, and the uncontradicted evidence disclosed the failure of consummation to be their fault.\n3. Bbokebs, \u00a7 80*\u2014when proof of tender of deed for exchange of real estate unnecessary to recover commissions. In an action to recover commissions for negotiating an exchange of real estate, where defendants agreed to pay commissions if the deal was not consummated because of their fault, held it was not incumbent on plaintiffs to prove that a deed had been tendered to defendants, where the evidence disclosed that the defendants unconditionally-refused to consummate the deal.\nHarry C. Diamond and James F. Hutchison, for appellants.\nPerlman & Rosenberg, for appellees; Samuel Plame, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0338-01",
  "first_page_order": 364,
  "last_page_order": 366
}