{
  "id": 2910371,
  "name": "E. F. Staff, Defendant in Error, v. A. Steiger, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Staff v. Steiger",
  "decision_date": "1914-10-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,611",
  "first_page": "43",
  "last_page": "44",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 43"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2160,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "sha256": "3e898eea090d65064115f1689fb3c94601159893b0b4ff33e1acafe1e2dc0f95",
    "simhash": "1:c133c601d00bb09c",
    "word_count": 360
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. F. Staff, Defendant in Error, v. A. Steiger, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court..\n2. Brokers, \u00a7 84 \u2014admissibility of evidence. In an action\" to recover broker\u2019s commissions for finding a tenant for defendant, refusal to permit defendant to testify to the amount of rental -he was paying held not error, for the reason the fact sought to be elicited had little bearing on the issues involved.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Weinberg & Grollman, for plaintiff in error; Frank & Lurie, of counsel.",
      "George H. Mason, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. F. Staff, Defendant in Error, v. A. Steiger, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,611.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Brokers, \u00a7 90 \u2014sufficiency of evidence to show plaintiff was procuring cause. In an action for broker\u2019s commissions for finding a tenant for defendant where a verdict on conflicting evidence was returned for plaintiff, held that the verdict would not be disturbed on the ground the evidence did not show plaintiff was the procuring cause of the demise, there being a legitimate inference from the evidence that the prospective tenant\u2019s attention was first called to the property by plaintiff and that the lease which was actually made was the result, and it also appearing that the tenant who would have been the best witness was not called, from which the jury may have drawn an inference unfavorable to the defendant.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Jr., Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 8, 1914.\nRehearing denied October 20, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by E. F. Staff against A. Steiger to recover broker\u2019s commissions alleged to have been earned in securing for defendant a tenant for certain premises on State street in Chicago. Upon a trial before a jury a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff for $766.30. To reverse a judgment entered on the verdict, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nWeinberg & Grollman, for plaintiff in error; Frank & Lurie, of counsel.\nGeorge H. Mason, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. 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": "0043-01",
  "first_page_order": 69,
  "last_page_order": 70
}