#### George J. Haberer, Defendant in Error, v. G. W. Kunstman, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,159.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 17, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by George J. Haberer against G. W. Kunstman to recover a real estate broker’s commission, as provided for by a written contract for the exchange of real estate executed by the defendant and a man named Sultan, by the terms of which the latter agreed to convey his property to defendant, subject to an incumbrance of $10,500 on the property, which the defendant agreed to assume. From a judgment of $600 in favor of the plaintiff the defendant brings a writ of error.

The evidence showed that when the title was examined it appeared that the property was incumbered by two trust deeds, aggregating $10,500, instead of one; whereupon the defendant refused to consummate *307the exchange, claiming that this fact made a material difference.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and ebbob, § 1245 * —invited error. Where, in an action to recover commissions for effecting a contract for an exchange of realty, the defendant gave evidence of conversations relating to incumbrances which took place before the execution of the contract, and the defendant introduced contradictory testimony, the defendant cannot predicate error since it was invited by him.

2. Bbokebs, § 55 * —when defect in title does not deprive broker of commissions. A broker who effects a contract for the exchange of realty is entitled to his commissions, although the transaction is not consummated because of defects in title.

3. Vendob and pubchaseb, § 139 * —when agreement to take subject to incumbrance includes two trust deeds. That an incumbrance constituted of two trust deeds is not a good objection to a title which a person contracted to take in exchange for realty, subject to an incumbrance of a stipulated amount which was the total of the two trust deeds.

4. Coñtbacts, § 171 * —when entire instrument considered in construing contract. In construing a contract, effect must be given to all of its language.

S. L. & Fred Lowenthal, for plaintiff in error.

Mattter & Hutson, for defendant in error; William A. Sheehan, of counsel.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the-court.