#### M. A. Riman, Defendant in Error, v. David H. Daskal, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,094.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Rooney, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.

Reversed with finding of fact.

Opinion filed May 20, 1915.

*604Statement of the Case.

Action by M. A. Biman, plaintiff, against David H. Daskal, defendant, to recover two hundred dollars as commission for services in effecting an exchange of real estate between defendant and one G-oldstein.

To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for two hundred dollars, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

It was conceded upon the trial that plaintiff at the time of the transaction, had not procured a license to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a broker, within the city of Chicago, as provided in paragraph 192, chapter XV of the Municipal Code.

As grounds for the reversal of said judgment, it was claimed that the evidence showed that plaintiff was engaged in the business of a real estate broker when he negotiated the exchange and that the evidence showed that plaintiff, without the knowledge and consent of defendant acted as the agent of both parties.

Plaintiff admitted that he had acted in the capacity of a real estate broker in connection with a firm until March, 1913. The execution of the written contract between the parties making the exchange involved in this action was on July 26, 1913, plaintiff testified that he was first consulted by defendant as to his property in March, 1913. Witnesses for defendant testified that during the time following March, 1913, and while plaintiff was negotiating for the sale or exchange of the property of defendant, he represented himself as being engaged in the real estate business, and that he then had and distributed his business cards whereon he designated his business as “Beal Estate, Loans and Insurance,” that plaintiff sought to effect an exchange of the property of defendant for other properties. Plaintiff denied that he had been engaged in the business of a real estate broker since March, 1913, or that he had represented himself as a real estate agent or that he had any business cards whereon he designated himself as a real estate agent, but he did *605not deny that he had sought to effect an exchange of the property owned "by defendant for property other than that owned by Goldstein.

Abstract of the Decision.

Brokers, § 28 * —when want of license defense to action for commissions. Evidence examined in action to recover commissions for services in effecting exchange of real estate, and held to show that plaintiff was engaged in the business of brokerage as an occupation, without having procured a license and that therefore he was not entitled to recover.

Jonas O. Hoover, for plaintiff in error.

Francis J. Sullivan, 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.