{
  "id": 2898425,
  "name": "E. M. Willoughby et al., trading as Willoughby & Company, Defendants in Error, v. Philip S. Brown, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Willoughby v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1914-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,428",
  "first_page": "51",
  "last_page": "52",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 Ill. App. 51"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "244 Ill. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3411753
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/244/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N. J. Law 193",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J.L.",
      "case_ids": [
        212116
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/njl/81/0193-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. J. Law 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J.L.",
      "case_ids": [
        295375
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/njl/78/0594-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 Ill. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4690338
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/254/0134-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3263,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.990645650598917e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5028779670166098
    },
    "sha256": "263f9e791ca96921437896630373378398da8ff3c06604a1fe2187cbd9b8aa36",
    "simhash": "1:e683c790d28a70b8",
    "word_count": 571
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. M. Willoughby et al., trading as Willoughby & Company, Defendants in Error, v. Philip S. Brown, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis writ of error brings in review a judgment entered, on a verdict for plaintiffs against plaintiff in error Brown in the Municipal Court on an agreement to pay plaintiffs $846 as commissions for finding a tenant ready and willing to accept a lease for ninety-nine years of certain real estate on the. terms offered by Brown.\nMary E. Eyan was the owner of the real estate and had given Brown a power of attorney to sell and convey the same. The power of attorney did not give authority to lease, nor did it give authority to employ a broker. Brown stated to plaintiffs that he was authorized to lease said real estate. Authority to sell or lease does not imply authority in the agent to employ a broker. Doggett v. Greene, 254 Ill. 134.\nThe promise by Brown to pay defendant for this service in finding a man ready, able and willing to accept a lease was binding on him individually. Sadler v. Young, 78 N. J. Law 594.\nIt was not necessary that Brown have any interest in the property placed by him in the hands of plaintiffs, to bind him personally by a promise to pay commissions. Payne v. Twitchell, 81 N. J. Law 193.\nIt is a sufficient answer to the contention that as the suit was originally against Brown and Mrs. Eyan, there could be no recovery against Brown alone, that the plaintiff, before verdict, dismissed as to Mrs. Eyan. Malleable Iron Range Co. v. Pusey, 244 Ill. 184.\nThere is in the record no ordinance requiring real estate brokers to be licensed.. This court cannot take judicial notice of an ordinance, and the contention of plaintiff in error that the judgment must be reversed because no license was proved is without merit.\nWe think that on the facts shown by this record the jury properly found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edwy Logan Reeves, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Adler & Lederer, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. M. Willoughby et al., trading as Willoughby & Company, Defendants in Error, v. Philip S. Brown, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,428.\n1. Principal and agent, \u00a7 113 \u2014when agent may employ brolcer. Authority to sell or lease does not imply authority in the agent to employ a broker.\n2. Principal and agent, \u00a7 168*\u2014when agent is individually liable. An agent who employs a broker to procure a lessor for premises is individually liable for the services of such broker, when his act is not authorized, even though such agent has no interest in the property involved.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1238*\u2014when appellant cannot complain of error below. In a suit by brokers for commissions in procuring a tenant against an agent and an owner of property, it could not he contended that there could he no recovery against the agent alone, when the plaintiff, before verdict, dismissed the suit as to the owner.\n4. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 103*\u2014when ordinance must be proved. The court cannot take judicial notice of an ordinance.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John K. Prindiville, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1914.\nRehearing denied January 4, 1915.\nEdwy Logan Reeves, for plaintiff in error.\nAdler & Lederer, for defendants in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0051-01",
  "first_page_order": 73,
  "last_page_order": 74
}