{
  "id": 2873956,
  "name": "Frank N. Derby, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward J. Novak, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Derby v. Novak",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,596",
  "first_page": "36",
  "last_page": "38",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 36"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2466,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "sha256": "3dd271a8a25a41ef45290c1c75222bc3a4c76e4c979cd4a6b08500e945d2f316",
    "simhash": "1:997d3e458e1bcabc",
    "word_count": 411
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank N. Derby, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward J. Novak, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nBrokers, \u00a7 71 \u2014what is not defense to action for compensation. In a suit for broker\u2019s commissions, the fact that the broker recorded or caused to be recorded the written contract for the exchange of property, without authority from either the buyer or seller so to do, would not alone bar the broker\u2019s right to recover if he was otherwise entitled thereto.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Arthur A. Basse, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Daniel M. Rothschild, for defendant in error; Edward J. Novak, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank N. Derby, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward J. Novak, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,596.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Rafferty, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by Frank N. Derby against Edward J. Novak to recover a real estate broker\u2019s commission.\nThe defendant and a man named G-udichsen executed a written contract for the exchange of certain real estate. This contract was never consummated. The plaintiff was a broker in the transaction, and the said written contract contained the following provisions relating to commissions: \u201cBrokerage fees- to be paid as follows, to-wit: Party of the first part (Gudichsen) to pay to Frank N. Derby two hundred ($200.00) dollars. Party of the second part (defendant in error), to pay to Frank N. Derby two hundred ($200.00) dollars.\u201d In addition to this contract, the plaintiff also introduced evidence to the effect that he was to receive his commission from the defendant when he brought the latter and Gudichsen together in a valid, binding and enforceable contract. It is conceded that the plaintiff did bring the defendant and Gudichsen together in such a contract, but the defendant claimed on the trial that there was an oral agreement between the parties to this suit to the effect that the latter would not be entitled to any commission from the defendant until the contract between the latter and Gudichsen had been actually consummated, and some evidence, tending to prove this claim, was introduced.\nThe case was tried before the court without a jury, and a finding and judgment in favor of the defendant was entered, and this writ of error followed.\nArthur A. Basse, for plaintiff in error.\nDaniel M. Rothschild, for defendant in error; Edward J. Novak, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0036-01",
  "first_page_order": 62,
  "last_page_order": 64
}