#### James H. Hooper, Appellee, v. O. C. Hagen, Appellant.

Gen. No. 23,612. (Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Vendor and purchaser, § 167 * —when consideration for arrangement concerning rent shown. Evidence held to show that *516plaintiff and defendant had such interest in certain premises at and after a contract for the sale of same was entered into between plaintiff’s assignor as purchaser and a certain stenographer in defendant’s office as would furnish a sufficient legal consideration for defendant’s promise to plaintiff to furnish plaintiff certain orders upon the tenants in possession of the premises to pay rent to the plaintiff, notwithstanding defendant was not the holder of the legal title, and notwithstanding plaintiff directed execution- of the deed under the contract to another person, where plaintiff and defendant had dealt with each other as having an actual interest in the premises.

*515Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Dennis W. Sullivan, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.

Reversed and judgment here for plaintiff for $28.90.

Opinion filed March 5, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action by James H. Hooper, plaintiff, against O. O. Hagen, defendant, to recover upon an alleged agreement by defendant to procure for plaintiff certain orders upon the tenants in possession of certain premises to pay the rents due and to accrue to plaintiff under a certain written contract for the sale of the premises to plaintiff’s assignor, the contract being assigned to plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiff for $89, defendant appeals.

The contract was executed by a stenographer in defendant’s office, on one side, and plaintiff’s assignor, on the other. The deal was closed after the assignment, and by plaintiff’s direction deed was executed by Frederick J. Phillips, who held the legal title, to Louis Heidlauf.

Anderson, Anderson & Anderson, for appellant.

James H. Hooper, pro se.

*

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

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

*5162. Vendor and purchaser, § 167*—when rent recoverable by assignee of contract of purchase from real original owner. Plaintiff was entitled to recover from defendant as the real original owner of property certain rent due, less a certain deduction conceded, where he was entitled to such rent as assignee of a certain contract of purchase but was unable to enforce collection of same by reason of defendant’s refusal to perform his agreement to deliver to plaintiff orders upon the tenants to pay rent to plaintiff.