#### William E. Schofield, Plaintiff in Error, v. William H. Zinn and Frank G. Warden, Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 19,601.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Sabath, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 28, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action in the Municipal Court by William E. Schofield in an attachment against William H. Zinn, wherein Frank Gr. Warden was summoned as garnishee, to recover $825 alleged to be due the plaintiff as a brokerage commission for procuring the sale of certain shares of stock by said Zinn to said Warden. A trial *457by the court resulted in a finding in favor of the defendant Zinn, and a further finding that the garnishee was indebted to Zinn in the sum of $16,125. To reverse a judgment entered in favor of the defendant Zinn, the plaintiff brings error.

Abstract of the Decision.

Beokers, § 57 * —when broker not entitled to commission. Where a commission agreement is referable to an option contract of a certain date, in the' absence of any evidence tending to show a want of good faith on the part of the vendor and vendee of such option contract in failing to consummate the same, for the purpose of depriving the broker procuring such contract of his commissions, the latter cannot predicate a right to recover commissions under such commission agreement merely upon the ground that at some subsequent time the same parties actually entered into and consummated a contract for the purchase and sale of a portion of the same shares of stock mentioned in such option contract.

Duncombe & Behan, for plaintiff in error; S. G. Hamblen, of counsel.

Judah, Willard, Wolf & Reichmann, for defendant in error.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.