#### Timothy O’Brien and Nellie O’Brien, Appellees, v. Michael E. Quirk, Appellant.

Gen. No. 22,789.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Judgment, § 206 * —when not inconsistent with finding. In an action to recover money paid on a contract and for money loaned, where the court stated in an informal talk that the court thought “plaintiff ought to have his money back,” and the record stated: “The court finds the issues against the defendant and assesses the plaintiffs’ damages at the sum of,” etc., and the order of judgment was: “That the plaintiffs have judgment on the finding herein and that the plaintiffs have and recover of and from the defendant the damages of the plaintiffs,” held that such informal statement was not the formal finding of the court, and that the judgment and finding were consistent.

2. Vendos and pubchaseb, § 327*—when purchaser entitled to recover payments. Where the vendor of real estate refuses to make a deed or comply with his undertaking, the purchaser is entitled to recover whatever money he may have paid.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. F. J. Campbell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 26, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Timothy O’Brien and Nellie O’Brien, plaintiffs, against Michael E. Quirk, defendant, to recover money paid on a certain contract of sale of real estate and for money loaned. From a judgment for plaintiffs for $941, defendant appeals.

George H. Sugrue, for appellant.

Ryan & Lewis, for appellees.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.