{
  "id": 2899530,
  "name": "Harry C. Bunn, Appellant, v. Nettie B. Smith, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bunn v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1914-10-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "530",
  "last_page": "532",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 Ill. App. 530"
    }
  ],
  "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": 3301,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.722862155385194e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40811819530791177
    },
    "sha256": "e712fab4c7a1b65e81efa5f6d2ef46c7320f943ca2b24cfaf1b3cc7356d5f436",
    "simhash": "1:6b33e2e9ee0fb8b2",
    "word_count": 588
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harry C. Bunn, Appellant, v. Nettie B. Smith, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "DeMange, Gillespie & DeMange, for appellant.",
      "Barry & Morrissey, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harry C. Bunn, Appellant, v. Nettie B. Smith, Appellee.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. Colostin D. Myers, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 16, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Harry C. Bunn against Nettie B. Smith to recover the sum of $1,800 as a real estate broker\u2019s commission. The case was tried by a jury and at the close of plaintiff\u2019s testimony the court directed a verdict for defendant. To reverse a judgment entered on the verdict, plaintiff appeals.\nDefendant and her two brothers owned a store building occupied by a certain company as a tenant. Plaintiff testified that he called defendant by telephone and conversed with her as follows: \u201cI told her I had a customer who would pay $87,000 for the building; she said she couldn\u2019t accept it; she said her brother had always told her that it was worth $90,000, and they ought to have it, she referred to Dudley, and she also said she wouldn\u2019t feel right to take a less amount. I said if I get a customer who will give you $90,000 will you sell! .And she said she would, and I said all right.\u201d After this conversation plaintiff testified that he had a talk with the manager of the store and procured the name of Mr. Smith, the vice-president of the company, and wrote to him; that Mr. Smith later called upon him and that he (Mr. Smith) finally made the remark: \u201cI expect we will have to buy this building, you get Miss Smith (the defendant) to come to the store.\u201d Plaintiff further testified that he then went to look for defendant and that Mr. Smith went to the store; that after the latter reached the store the manager called in the defendant and very soon thereafter he (plaintiff) entered the store and spoke to defendant and said: \u201cI have been looking and telephoning for you,\u201d and that she said: \u201cI can sell to these people as well as you can. I didn\u2019t tell you to sell my budding ; \u2019 \u2019 that he said: \u2018 \u2018Don\u2019t you remember my offering you $87,000? \u2019\u2019 That she said: \u201cYes, and I refused it;\u201d that he said: \u2018\u2018Didn\u2019t you tell me you would take $90,000 and you said yes?\u201d That she said: 1 \u2018My price is $90,000 and I won\u2019t give a commission;\u201d and that he said: \u201cIf you sell it to those people you will have to pay a commission.\u201d It appeared that some months later defendant and her brother sold the building to the company which occupied it as a tenant and of which Mr. Smith was vice-president.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Brokers, \u00a7 7 \u2014when evidence insufficient to show employment. In an action to recover real estate brokerage commissions, evidence held insufficient to show any employment by the defendant to sell her property.\n2. Brokers, \u00a7 32*\u2014necessity of employment. The mere fact that a real estate agent was instrumental in finding a purchaser who afterwards purchased the property from the owner at the price the latter told him she would take for it does not entitle the agent to a commission, unless he is able to show he was employed by her to find a purchaser.\nDeMange, Gillespie & DeMange, for appellant.\nBarry & Morrissey, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0530-01",
  "first_page_order": 552,
  "last_page_order": 554
}