{
  "id": 2867343,
  "name": "A. L. Carlisle and G. N. Carlisle, trading as A. L. Carlisle & Son, Appellee, v. John L. Novak, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carlisle v. Novak",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-20",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,077",
  "first_page": "385",
  "last_page": "387",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 Ill. App. 385"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 4128,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "fa9a894baa3c17f9e3cb03c21a80e9bdb453fdb208df824a8b591509ac7e465a",
    "simhash": "1:305673d9e83c7779",
    "word_count": 676
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:56.876051+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. L. Carlisle and G. N. Carlisle, trading as A. L. Carlisle & Son, Appellee, v. John L. Novak, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Niehaus\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Niehaus"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter Truc, for appellant.",
      "Robert G. Earley, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. L. Carlisle and G. N. Carlisle, trading as A. L. Carlisle & Son, Appellee, v. John L. Novak, Appellant.\nGen. No. 6,077.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Kane county; the Hon. Frank G. Plain, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the April term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 20, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by A. L. Carlisle and Gr. N. Carlisle, trading as A. L. Carlisle & Son, plaintiffs, against John L. Novak, defendant, in the County Court of Kane county, to recover a broker\u2019s commissi on for negotiating the sale of defendant\u2019s farm to one Mattsen, a tenant of the farm in question. From a judgment for plaintiffs for $430.20, defendant appeals.\nPlaintiffs introduced a letter from defendant to them, as follows:\n\u201cI hereby notify you that I am placing my farm in St. Charles, again on the market, and if you care to handle it on the basis of two per cent, commission, as we formerly agreed upon, I hereby authorize you to sell the farm for $150 an acre for cash or part cash, and for the balance a mortgage.\u201d\nDefendant testified, in substance, that he procured the sale of the farm to the buyer in question and that having made a proposal to such buyer, which was rejected by him on account of dissatisfaction with the purchase price proposed, defendant suggested that such buyer submit the terms on which he would purchase, which was done, and defendant accepted the buyer\u2019s proposal. Plaintiffs introduced evidence to the effect that after the failure of defendant\u2019s negotiations, in accordance with defendant\u2019s written request as above stated, they commenced negotiations with Mattsen, inducing him to change his mind and to submit the proposal testified to by defendant, which was prepared in their office, which was accepted and the farm sold to him. Plaintiffs \u2019 evidence was corroborated by Mattsen. It did not appear from plaintiffs\u2019 evidence whether the proposal by Mattsen, after being prepared by them, was submitted to defendant by Mattsen or by themselves.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Brokers, \u00a7 90 \u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that broker induced buyer to purchase. In an action to recover a broker\u2019s commission for procuring the sale of defendant\u2019s farm, where the evidence was conflicting as to whether defendant made the sale or whether such sale was brought about by plaintiffs\u2019 efforts after defendant had failed to induce the buyer to purchase, a finding for plaintiffs held not erroneous under the evidence.\n2. Brokers, \u00a7 95 \u2014when instruction on right to commission erroneous. In an action to recover a broker\u2019s commission for negotiating the sale of defendant\u2019s farm, the buyer being a tenant of defendant, and where the evidence was conflicting as to whether defendant negotiated the sale without the intervention of plaintiffs, or whether, after failure of defendant\u2019s negotiations to effect a sale, the efforts of plaintiffs induced such buyer to again consider purchasing such farm, after which all the negotiations were conducted by plaintiffs, a proposition of law to the effect that plaintiffs did not earn a commission by their prior negotiations, if any, with the tenant, unless such conversations and negotiations resulted in bringing the defendant and the tenant into direct negotiations which culminated in a sale, held properly refused as an incorrect statement of the law, and as it assumed the disputed fact of direct negotiations between plaintiffs and defendant.\nThe case was tried without a jury and the court refused to hold a proposition of law submitted by defendant, as follows:\n\u201cThat the plaintiff did not earn a commission on the sale of the defendant\u2019s real estate to Mattsen by. their prior conversations or negotiatipns, if any, with Mattsen, unless such conversations and negotiations resulted in bringing the defendant and Mattsen into direct negotiations which culminated in a sale.\u201d\nWalter Truc, for appellant.\nRobert G. Earley, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0385-01",
  "first_page_order": 433,
  "last_page_order": 435
}