#### Robert E. Devereaux and John D. Rubly, trading as Devereaux & Rubly, Defendants in Error, v. R. O. Jehu, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,176.

(Not to be reported in full.)

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

Reversed with finding of facts.

Opinion filed March 11, 1915.

Rehearing denied March 24, 1915.

*7Statement of the Case.

Action by Robert E. Devereaux and John Rubly, trading as Devereaux & Rubly, against R. O. Jehu to recover commissions for the sale of certain property owned by defendant to one Dr. Rosenthal, which sale, plaintiffs claimed, had been negotiated by their salesman, one Harvey. The property had been listed by defendant with another firm of brokers in whose employ Harvey then was. While in the employ of the latter he submitted Dr. Rosenthal’s offer of nine thousand dollars to defendant, but the latter rejected it because he would be required to pay a commission of two hundred and fifty dollars out of the amount offered. Dr. Rosenthal then abandoned the idea of purchasing the property, renewed his lease on the premises then occupied by him, and entered into negotiations with others for the purchase of other property. In the meantime Harvey entered the employ of plaintiffs and testified that he notified defendant of the fact and again took the matter up with Dr. Rosenthal, but this the latter denied. The property was subsequently sold to the doctor by defendant for the sum of nine thousand dollars, through another agent" who accepted fifty dollars as his commission.

From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error.

William B. Jabvis, for plaintiff in error.

Winston, Payne, Stbawn & Shaw, for defendants in error; J. Sidney Condit, of counsel.

*

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

Mr. Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.

*8Abstract of the Decision.

Brokers, § 37 * —when not procuring cause. Where a salesman in the employ of a broker submitted to the owner of property an offer of a prospective purchaser, which the owner declined on account of the amount of commission which he would be required to pay out of the sum offered, and his client then abandoned the idea of purchasing the property, but afterwards purchased the same property for the sum previously offered, through another agent, who accepted less commission than was demanded by the salesman who had in the meantime entered the employ of plaintiffs, also brokers, and who testified that he had notified the owner of his change of employment and had thereafter again taken the matter up with the purchaser, which was denied by the latter, it was helct, in view of all the evidence, that plaintiffs were not the procuring cause and hence were not entitled to commissions.