#### S. A. Wright and E. P. Fleming, partners as Wright & Fleming, Appellees, v. Elsie Olson, Appellant.

Gen. No. 5,996.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. Oscar E. Heard, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 6, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by S. A. Wright and E. P. Fleming, partners . as Wright & Fleming, against Elsie Olson to recover commissions on the sale of real estate.

Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant agreed to pay a commission of one dollar per acre if they would sell her farm of one hundred and sixty acres at two *273hundred dollars an acre. Defendant denied that she had authorized them. The evidence showed that one of the plaintiffs spent much time in an effort to sell the farm, that he procured the purchaser who purchased at the agreed price.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Brokers, § 93 * —when finding of fury on conflicting evidence not disturbed. In an action to recover commissions on the sale of land, where the evidence is directly conflicting as to whether or not plaintiff was authorized to make the sale, defendant also claiming that she supposed that he was acting as the purchaser’s agent, hut the evidence showing that he was not acting for the purchaser, the finding of the jury will not he disturbed.

2. Brokers, § 85*—when testimony as to listing of land for sale admissible in action for commissions. In an action by a real estate broker to recover commissions on a sale of land alleged to have been made by agreement with the owner, evidence of plaintiff that he had listed the land on his books is admissible.

3. Appear and error, § 1533*—when use of ordinary term in instruction not error. In an action to recover commissions on a sale of real estate claimed to have been made by plaintiff for defendant, it is not error, in an instruction to use the word “listed” in the same sense that it had been frequently used in the testimony and as it is understood in ordinary conversation.

There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs in the justice court for the full amount claimed, and from the judgment defendant appealed to the Circuit Court and, on affirmance by that court, takes this appeal.

John E. Erwin, for appellant.

Harry Edwards and C. F. Preston, for appellees.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.