{
  "id": 2876829,
  "name": "S. J. Ostrowski, Plaintiff in Error, v. Annie Czarnik, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ostrowski v. Czarnik",
  "decision_date": "1915-06-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,603",
  "first_page": "343",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ill. App. 343"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 3304,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "1f4e483d2de0f31414ca97f3a6943efd3e10d72e4ba54aeeabad949ada106164",
    "simhash": "1:2c7c3a25134fe13d",
    "word_count": 561
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:49:21.752065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. J. Ostrowski, Plaintiff in Error, v. Annie Czarnik, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. F. Welzant and David B. Maloney, for plaintiff in error; Daniel S. Wentworth, of counsel.",
      "Albert H. Meads, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. J. Ostrowski, Plaintiff in Error, v. Annie Czarnik, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,603.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Fred C. Him, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 17, 1915.\nRehearing denied July 3, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by S. J. Ostrowski against Annie Czarnik to recover a commission for procuring a purchaser for real estate. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff brings error.\nThe evidence showed that while the property in question was listed with the plaintiff, he was not the exclusive agent, but that other brokers were also endeavoring to effect a sale; that in February, 1914, the property was sold by the defendant to Mr. and Mrs. John Polcyn jointly. The defendant testified that the sale was made \u201cfrom the outside,\u201d meaning through brokers other than the plaintiff; that in January, 1914, an employee of the plaintiff took Mrs. Polcyn to see defendant\u2019s property, but they did not at that time see the defendant; that the plaintiff then notified the defendant personally and by two letters, one in English and the other in Polish, that the property had been submitted to Mrs. Polcyn. One of the letters stated that the plaintiff showed Mrs. Polcyn only the \u201coutside\u201d of the property, and that she \u201crefused to step inside.\u201d The plaintiff\u2019s employee testified that Mrs Polcyn told him she had seen the property before, and the defendant testified that Mrs. Polcyn had been introduced to her by another real estate man in December, 1913. There was no evidence tending to prove that the visit of Mrs. Polcyn to defendant\u2019s premises, in company with the plaintiff\u2019s employee, either brought about or had anything to do with bringing about the sale that was finally made.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Brokers, \u00a7 37 \u2014when broker entitled to compensation. Where real estate was listed with several brokers, one of them cannot recover compensation if it does not appear that he was the first to call the purchaser\u2019s attention to the property, or that his efforts contributed to the consummation of the sale.\n2. Brokers, \u00a7 77 \u2014when variance between pleading and proof in action for compensation. A broker cannot recover compensation for a sale of real estate by a client to Mr. and Mrs. John Polcyn jointly, upon an averment of a sale to John Polcyn, a purchaser procured by the plaintiff, where the evidence did not show that the latter ever introduced the purchaser to the defendant, or that Mrs. Polcyn, to whom the plaintiff showed the property, acted as her husband\u2019s agent.\n3. Estoppbi,, \u00a7 52 \u2014when liability for broker\u2019s compensation created by admissions. A property owner held not estopped from denying that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of a sale of real estate, by saying \u201call right\u2019\u2019 when informed by a person whom he did not know was an employee of the plaintiff, that he would have to pay the latter a commission.\nR. F. Welzant and David B. Maloney, for plaintiff in error; Daniel S. Wentworth, of counsel.\nAlbert H. Meads, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0343-01",
  "first_page_order": 365,
  "last_page_order": 366
}