{
  "id": 5121138,
  "name": "Whitfield v. Huling et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitfield v. Huling",
  "decision_date": "1893-02-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "179",
  "last_page": "181",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 179"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "36 Iowa, 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        2301199
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/36/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 B. Mon. 245",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "B. Mon.",
      "case_ids": [
        2340827
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/56/0245-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ga. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga.",
      "case_ids": [
        873177
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "153"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ga/54/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 Mass. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 Mass. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        716010
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/106/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Denio, 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Denio",
      "case_ids": [
        2187617
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/denio/3/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Vt. 655",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        8546016
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/41/0655-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 W. R. 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ill. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2803910
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/103/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 Ill. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5374254
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/110/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ill. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2810997
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/102/0523-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5273712
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/55/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Brad. 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Bradf.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. App. 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4954789
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/27/0270-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill. App. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5146462
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/46/0361-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. App. 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4954789
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/27/0270-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 281,
    "char_count": 2959,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1693912207279321e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5859606100587331
    },
    "sha256": "5a01d8f18dc15a4bc2ff87e8dbabd4e3721344b488cd5430226935d8d97f2358",
    "simhash": "1:05deabf04e1f03b8",
    "word_count": 523
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Whitfield v. Huling et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion of the Court,\nGary, P. J.\nThe appellees sued for commissions on a loan which they claim to have obtained for the appellant.\nHo review of the facts is necessary. The counsel for the appellee states in his brief that the principal question is, \u201c Are the plaintiffs prevented from recovering herein because they did not have a license as real estate brokers from the City of Chicago % \u201d\nThe question arises upon a plea by the appellant, to which a demurrer was sustained. Ho objection is made to the plea other than that the ordinance can not affect the business relations of the parties.\nThe contrary was decided by this court in Hustis v. Pickands, 27 Ill. App. 270, where the ordinance is copied, and we followed that case in Eckert v. Collott, 46 Ill. App. 361.\nThe demurrer was wrongly sustained, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gary, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant\u2019s Brief, Charles H. Lawrence, Attorney.",
      "Appellees\u2019 Brief, Chas. S. Fry, Attorney."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Whitfield v. Huling et al.\n1. Real Estate Brokers\u2014Recovery of Commissions.\u2014A person who is engaged in the business of real estate broker in the city of Chicago, can not recover his commissions unless he has a license as a real estate broker from the city.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action of assumpsit for commissions, commenced May 11, 1887. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1892.\nOpinion filed February 14, 1893.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, Charles H. Lawrence, Attorney.\nAppellant contended that the special plea contained a complete defense to the action. Hustis v. Pickands, 27 Ill. App. 270, and cases there cited; Farrow v. Vedder, 19 Brad. 305; Anson on Contracts, 144; 2 Parsons on Contracts, 186; Cincinnati Mut. H. A. Co. v. Rosenthal, 55 Ill. 85; Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523; Braun v. City of Chicago, 110 Ill. 186; Workingmen\u2019s Banking Co. v. Rautenberg, 103 Ill. 460.\nAppellees\u2019 Brief, Chas. S. Fry, Attorney.\nAppellees contended that the sole purpose of the ordinance in question is to get revenue. And that it does not assume to reach or affect the validity of contracts made by an unlicensed broker; and that such contracts are not affected thereby, or against any public policy, or void, but are valid; and that the cases where contracts of an unlicensed person are held void are where the purpose of the license law is something beyond getting revenue from the license fee, e. g., the protection of the public interests or to carry out a public policy. Smith v. Mawhood, 14 M. & W., 452; Johnson v. Hudson, 11 East (K. B.) 180; Brown v. Duncan, 10 B. & C. 93; Bailey v. Harris, 12 Q. B. 905; Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149; Tyler v. Larimore, 2 W. R. 179; Aiken v. Blaisdell, 41 Vt. 655; Griffith v. Wells, 3 Denio, 226; Larned v. Andrews, 106 Mass. 435; Pope v. Beals, 108 Mass. 562; Taliaferro v. Moffett, 54 Ga. 150, 153; Lindsay v. Rutherford, 17 B. Mon. 245; Strong v. Darling, 9 Ohio R. 201; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa, 546."
  },
  "file_name": "0179-01",
  "first_page_order": 175,
  "last_page_order": 177
}