{ "id": 5115568, "name": "Samuel B. Foster v. Edwin Wynn", "name_abbreviation": "Foster v. Wynn", "decision_date": "1894-02-13", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "401", "last_page": "402", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "51 Ill. App. 401" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "34 Ill. App. 17", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4999662 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/34/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. App. 169", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4960821 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/28/0169-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2685521 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/79/0435-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 S. W. Rep. 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ala. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 5467604 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala/50/0426-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 282, "char_count": 3884, "ocr_confidence": 0.474, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.754974307443314e-08, "percentile": 0.3599568932397217 }, "sha256": "bb81af9f81db2175b20120f1ee92d3a6f12aee77a057662b3c77b5228bee6ef8", "simhash": "1:79b12121976cc0e3", "word_count": 643 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Samuel B. Foster v. Edwin Wynn." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mb. Justice Wateeman\ndelivebed the opinion oe the Coubt.\nThis was an action by an agent to recover commissions on a sale of real estate.\nAppellee being employed by appellant sold the latter\u2019s property to one Caldwell. The contract was brought to, approved, and, it would seem, signed by him.\nCaldwell afterward made objection to the title\u2014objection said by appellant to have been frivolous. It is quite evident that Caldwell did wish to be released from his contract, and appellant, without consultation with appellee, released him. Caldwell was evidently able to perform his bargain, and, quite likely would have done so had not appellant released him.\nIf Caldwell had without release from, or fault of appellant, refused to complete the purchase, a different question as to the right to commissions would have been presented. Blankenship v. Ryerson, 50 Ala. 426; Gilchrist v. Clarke, 8 S. W. Rep. 572.\nCaldwell could not, by his statement when he was released from his bargain, that \u201c no commissions would be charged,\u201d bind appellee, who had nothing to do with and was not present when the release was given.\nBy the unconditional release of Caldwell the money he had deposited was released from any claim thereon appellant had before then had. Appellant at once ordered appellee to surrender the earnest money to Caldwell.\nThe disputed and disputable questions of fact must be, by this court, presumed to have 'been found in favor of appellee.\nThe jury have failed to find that appellee was guilty of any improper conduct, and they have found that he was authorized to and did make a sale of appellant\u2019s property, to one able, willing and ready to buy; the judgment must therefore be affirmed. Carter v. Webster, 79 Ill. 435; McConaughy v. Mahannah, 28 Ill. App. 169; Adams v. Decker, 34 Ill. App. 17.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mb. Justice Wateeman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Samuel B. Fosteb, attorney for appellant.", "Pence & Cabpenteb, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Samuel B. Foster v. Edwin Wynn.\n1. Brokers\u2014When Entitled to Commission.\u2014A real estate broker, before he is entitled to commissions, must furnish a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to complete the purchase on the terms proposed. If the vendor accepts the purchaser and enters into a valid contract with him or cancels the contract and releases the purchaser, the commission is earned.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit for broker\u2019s commissions. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Samuel P. McConnell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed February 13, 1894.\nStatement of the Case.\nIn December, 1889, appellant asked appellee, a real estate broker, to sell for him a lot on Ashland boulevard, in the city of Chicago. Appellee submitted the property to Henry W. Caldwell, who offered $225 a foot, and agreed to assume two boulevard assessments. Appellee then communicated the proposition to Foster, the appellant, who accepted it, whereupon a written contract in the usual form ivas signed by the parties, Caldwell and Foster, and delivered to appellee together with $250 earnest money, to be held in escrow. An abstract of title was also furnished by Foster and given by appellee to Mr. Caldwell\u2019s attorney to examine. Objections Avere raised to the title, and as a result of various consultations in reference to the defects, the contract was canceled and the deal declared off. Appellee was not present Avhen the contract was canceled; never urged or consented to it, and took no part in the conversations regarding the title. The purchaser was ready and willing and able to perform his contract, and never refused to do so. Appellee claimed the commissions after negotiations were declared off, which Foster refused to pay. Suit was brought to recover the commission, jury waived, and the cause being submitted to the court, judgment was entered against Foster for $140.60. From that judgment Foster appeals to this court.\nSamuel B. Fosteb, attorney for appellant.\nPence & Cabpenteb, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0401-01", "first_page_order": 397, "last_page_order": 398 }