{
  "id": 5419338,
  "name": "C. V. O'Connor, Appellee, v. P. R. Kennedy, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "O'Connor v. Kennedy",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,171",
  "first_page": "426",
  "last_page": "427",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 Ill. App. 426"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3339,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.585,
    "sha256": "ca5054952f3556916710cdf4870fc3e644dd03885c2f1b0c29138993b5283b31",
    "simhash": "1:8561eeb44a0f62be",
    "word_count": 559
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:22.374886+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. V. O\u2019Connor, Appellee, v. P. R. Kennedy, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Niehaus\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Witnesses, \u00a7 209 \u2014when denial of cross-examination proper. In an action for commissions for the sale of real estate, refusal to allow the plaintiff to be cross-examined as to details of his knowledge of the land sold, where he had not testified on such matters in his direct examination, and the purchaser was familiar with the land, held not error.\n3. Bbokebs, \u00a7 97*\u2014when instruction in action for commissions properly refused as misleading. In an action to recover real estate commissions for a sale alleged to have been made by the owner, as a result of the plaintiff\u2019s efforts following an alleged promise by the owner to pay the plaintiff such commissions after the owner had failed to effect a sale to such purchaser with whom he had originally negotiated, without any introduction by the plaintiff, an instruction making it essential to a recovery that the purchaser should have been originally procured by the plaintiff, held properly refused as misleading.\n4. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1533*\u2014when error in spelling of word in instruction harmless. Substitution of the word \u201caffect\u201d for \u201ceffect\u201d in an instruction, held not reversible error.\n5. Bbokebs, \u00a7 97*\u2014when instruction on right to recover commissions correct. In an action for commissions for the sale of real estate, an instruction that the plaintiff \u201cis entitled to recover, if he was instrumental in bringing the buyer and seller together,\u201d held correct and not open to the objection that the jury might have inferred that it meant a mere physical bringing together.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Niehaus"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James M. Huff and Charles W. Ferguson, for appellant.",
      "William L. Pierce, William Biester and Alexander J. Strom, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. V. O\u2019Connor, Appellee, v. P. R. Kennedy, Appellant.\nGen. No. 6,171.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bbokebs, \u00a7 37 \u2014when entitled to commissions upon procuring purchaser. If, after negotiations between the owner of real estate and a prospective purchaser have been broken off, the owner, after promising an agent that he will pay him commissions if he will get such prospective purchaser to buy the property, makes a sale to such purchaser after efforts of the agent had had the effect of bringing the parties to an understanding, such agent may recover the agreed commissions.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Boone county; the Hon. Claibe C. Edwabds, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 26, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by C. V. O\u2019Connor, plaintiff, against P. R. Kennedy, defendant, to recover real estate commissions. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nAfter efforts on the part of defendant to sell his farm to a certain party had resulted in failure and negotiations had been broken off, the defendant, as claimed by the plaintiff, promised the latter certain commissions if he could get. such party to buy the farm, the making of which promise, however, was denied by the defendant. After efforts on the part of the plaintiff to effect a sale to such party, a sale was finally made to him by the defendant.\nJames M. Huff and Charles W. Ferguson, for appellant.\nWilliam L. Pierce, William Biester and Alexander J. Strom, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Dlinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0426-01",
  "first_page_order": 448,
  "last_page_order": 449
}