{
  "id": 5154599,
  "name": "John V. A. Weaver v. Edgar M. Snow et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Weaver v. Snow",
  "decision_date": "1895-12-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "624",
  "last_page": "626",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 624"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5113417
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/51/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. App. 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4953385
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/27/0217-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2877226
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/115/0120-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 Ill. 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5468325
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/151/0518-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5112258
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/51/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. 243",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        816485
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/51/0243-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5294251
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/42/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. App. 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5006032
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/35/0068-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 3911,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.099291899483843e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4675641321173551
    },
    "sha256": "5b099bfdf071f94516b9bd161d2de4539c495b426253fe6240b1e91d3bda8d96",
    "simhash": "1:b45927b9941ad8c0",
    "word_count": 686
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John V. A. Weaver v. Edgar M. Snow et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding. J cfstice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe appellees sued the appellant for \u00a72,500 which they claimed because they had sold, for \u00a717,500, the property mentioned in a paper delivered to them by appellant as follows ;\n\u201c Chicago, May 9, 1890.\nMessrs. Snow & Dickinson ;\nI hereby authorize you to sell my property, No. 48 Eldridge Court, within 30 days from date, at fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) net to me, the excess to be your commission. Terms, one-third cash; balance 1 and 2 years, at 6 per cent, or all cash.\nJohn V. A. Weaver.\u201d\nThe case was tried without a jury. The appellant endeavored to show that he delivered the paper\u2014not as a contract \u2014but to become a contract only upon the happening of a certain contingency which never happened. This was a competent defense. Counselman v. Collins, 35 Ill. App. 68.\nBut the court found against him upon conflicting testimony. It is urged that \u201c my property, 48 Eldridge Court,\u201d is not a sufficient description.\nThere being an Eldridge Court in the city of Chicago, where the appellant was part owner of No. 48, and the contract being dated at Chicago, the presumption is that the contract referred to that property. Harding v. Strong, 42 Ill. 148; White v. Hermann, 51 Ill. 243.\nThat the property was sold for \u00a717,500 to a purchaser who was ready, able and willing to take and pay for it, is abundantly proved, and if any of the terms of the contract as to payments, abstract or deed, were unsatisfactory to the appellant he should have objected on that ground, and not have refused absolutely to sell, as the testimony for the appellees is. Smith v. Keeler, 51 Ill. App. 267; 151 Ill. 518.\nWhether the appellees had a broker\u2019s license or not is immaterial, as no city ordinance is in the record. A reference to ordinances by articles and sections, does not bring them into the case. Ordinances must be proved by copy put in evidence. Lindsay v. Chicago, 115 Ill. 120.\nThe court can not take judicial notice of them. People v. Chicago, 27 Ill. App. 217.\nThe allowance of interest may have been wrong, but no point on it was made below. It is now too late. Gifford v. McGuern, 51 Ill. App. 387.\nIt is a case of conflicting testimony upon which the finding below is conclusive. The judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding. J cfstice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. S. Hodges, attorney for appellant.",
      "Collins, Goodrich, Darrow & Vincent, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John V. A. Weaver v. Edgar M. Snow et al.\n1. Defenses\u2014 Conditional Delivery of Contracts.\u2014In an action upon a contract the defendant may show that he delivered the contract, not as a contract, but to become a contract only upon the happening of a certain contingency which never happened.\n3. Description\u2014Of Premises in a Contract.\u2014Premises described as \u2018 \u2018 My property, 48 Eldridge Court \u201d in a contract with a real estate broker for the sale of the same. There being an Eldridge Court in the city of Chicago of which the contractor was part owner, and the contract being dated at Chicago, the presumption is that the description referred to that property.\n3. Sales\u2014Real Estate Broker\u2014When the Owner Must Object.\u2014 When a real estate broker sells property, in his hands for sale, to a purchaser who is ready, able and willing to take and pay for it, if any of the terms of sale as to payments, abstract or deed, are unsatisfactory to the owner he must object on that ground and not refuse absolutely to sell.\n4. Judicial Notice\u2014Of Ordinances.\u2014Courts do not take judicial notice of ordinances. They must be proved.\n5. Practice\u2014Objections Must be \u00bffade in the Court Below.\u2014When an allowance of interest is wrong, the point must be made in the court below. It comes too late for the first time in the Appellate Court.\nAssumpsit, for broker\u2019s commissions. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 2, 1895.\nL. S. Hodges, attorney for appellant.\nCollins, Goodrich, Darrow & Vincent, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0624-01",
  "first_page_order": 622,
  "last_page_order": 624
}