#### Ladislaw J. Tupy, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Cech and Anna Cech, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 22,100.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 29, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Ladislaw J. Tupy, plaintiff, against Frank Cech and Anna Cech, defendants, to recover commissions for the sale of real estate. To reverse a judgment of nil capiat, plaintiff prosecutes a writ of error.

Plaintiff was corroborated in his testimony by the testimony of Joseph and Mary Kolar, "the purchasers of the real estate, and was contradicted only by the testimony of Frank and Anna Cech.

Joseph Z. Klenha and Joseph J. Kroupa, for plaintiffs in error.

Newman, Poppenhusen & Stern, for defendant in error; Charles T. Farson, of counsel.

*

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

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered .the opinion of the court.

*497Abstract of the Decision.

1. Brokers, § 93 * —when existence of contract of employment for jury. In an action for commissions for the sale of real estate, question whether the plaintiff had established a contract of employment by the defendants held for the jury, and on the evidence conclusive on appeal.

2. Witnesses, § 253*—when credibility of for jury. Credibility of witnesses is a question for the jury.