{
  "id": 5060299,
  "name": "Charles E. Carlson v. Leopold Nathan",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carlson v. Nathan",
  "decision_date": "1891-12-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "364",
  "last_page": "365",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. App. 364"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2421137
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/30/0041-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2160,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.9001341389296556e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9017073968405108
    },
    "sha256": "80b66812022b4a89be9967b158a272eb596c6d001b5076dddbb25649cb6c27be",
    "simhash": "1:03a4a9a24c315060",
    "word_count": 364
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:21:13.881293+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles E. Carlson v. Leopold Nathan."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cart, J.\nThis is an action of assumpsit by the appellee against the appellant for commissions as a broker upon the sale of real estate.\nCarlson had some improved property incumbered for $18,000, and employed Hathan to dispose of it. Through a clerk, Hathan brought the property to the attention of John A. Linn, who had some unimproved and unincumbered property. Hathan told Carlson to go and see Linn, but he did not do so, though he did look at Linn\u2019s property.\nThe best offer that Nathan was able to obtain from Linn was on the basis that Carlson\u2019s property was worth \u00a712,500 more than Linn\u2019s, and that came through a clerk. Carlson would not accept it. Nathan himself saw Linn but once, and 'then they quarreled. All negotiations ceased, and nobody concerned had any further thought of a trade.\nCarlson and Linn had not met. More than a month thereafter, both of them being customers of the same banker, they were introduced to each other by that banker; spent several hours together, and finally agreed upon a trade upon the basis of \u00a715,000 difference in value.\nUpon such a state of facts the appellee was not entitled to commissions. His efforts to procure terms which Carlson w.ould accept failed.\nThe trade finally made was brought about by other influence, after he had abandoned the business. While the case of Davis v. Gassette, 30 Ill. App. 41, is not like this upon the facts, the principle of it, and the authorities there cited, apply.\nThe judgment must be reversed and the case remanded.\nJieversed and remanded,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cart, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Blanks & Chtteaus, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Hofheimer & Zeisler, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles E. Carlson v. Leopold Nathan.\nSales\u2014Real Property\u2014Agency\u2014Commissions\u2014Recovery of.\nIn an action by a broker to recover commissions upon a sale of real estate, this court holds there can be no recovery, the plaintiff\u2019s efforts to procure terms which the defendant would accept having failed, and the trade finally made having been brought about by other influences after the plaintiff had abandoned the business.\n[Opinion filed December 7, 1891.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Blanks & Chtteaus, for appellant.\nMessrs. Hofheimer & Zeisler, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0364-01",
  "first_page_order": 360,
  "last_page_order": 361
}