{ "id": 5278184, "name": "William Loehde and Charles A. Hutchinson v. Edward A. Halsey", "name_abbreviation": "Loehde v. Halsey", "decision_date": "1900-05-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "452", "last_page": "459", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "88 Ill. App. 452" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "45 Ill. 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 424990 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/45/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Ill. App. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2405167 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/1/0217-01" ] }, { "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": "20 Wend. 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5295026 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/42/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ill. 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "89" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 Ill. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3092381 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "214" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/167/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ill. App. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5792259 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/78/0516-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 626, "char_count": 13634, "ocr_confidence": 0.541, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7437490307778615e-07, "percentile": 0.7074286956498236 }, "sha256": "6ad1ae5f0a233e918e6b5e9c905d73ddd15df056b2f7bee5dc5949dc75d6ac03", "simhash": "1:03ca44f0532513d3", "word_count": 2385 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:14.009445+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "William Loehde and Charles A. Hutchinson v. Edward A. Halsey." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Adams\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action by appellants against appellee for commissions- claimed to be due to the former from the latter on a sale of real property. The court instructed the jury peremptorily to find the issues for the defendants, which the jury did, and judgment was rendered against appellants. The question presented by the instruction of the court is whether the evidence tended to prove the plaintiff\u2019s case. If so, the case should have been submitted to the jury, whose province it was to pass on the weight of the evidence. Corbin v. West. Elec. Co., 78 Ill. App. 516, and cases cited, p. 525; Dallemand v. Saalfeldt, 73 Ib. 151, and cases cited, p. 153; L. N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Patchen, 167 Ill. 204, 214; Siddall v. Jansen, 168 Ib. 43.\nThe same rule has been announced in a number of other cases, and may be regarded as thoroughly settled.\nThe appellants are real estate brokers, and appellant Charles A. Hutchinson testified that in the years 1894 and 1S95 he was associated in the real estate business with appellant William Loehde; that he had a conversation with appellee in the spring of 1894 in a street car. and said to appellee, \u201c I see you have some houses and lots for sale in your Woodlands subdivision up on Halsted, George and Oakdale avenue;\u201d that appellee said \u201cyes,\u201d when appellant asked him if he would allow them commission if they would sell some of them; that they were up there in the vicinity; that appellee said he would be glad to have them do so, and that he would make a plat for them, giving the prices of the lots for sale, and a description and prices of the houses for sale, and that he would pay a commission; that subsequently appellants received from appellee the following letter, inclosing a plat:\n\u201c Chicago, February 6, 1894.\nMesses. Loehde & Hutchinson,\n556 Sheffield avenue, City.\nGentlemen : In answer to the inquiry of your Mr. Hutchinson as to the houses we have for sale on Wellington and Oakdale avenues, just west of Halsted street, we send you herewith a description of the houses. (Here follows description of houses and agreement to pay commission of $100 a house.) We have vacant lots on Oakdale avenue and Wellington avenue at $120 a foot; on George street at $100 afoot; on Halsted street at $125 a foot. We-can pay you a commission of 2\u00a3 per cent on any sales you make of vacant property for us. We send you a plat of the propertjL The property is well built up, there being now about thirty good brick and stone houses on the ten acres of the\u2018Woodlands\u2019 subdivision. Ho frame houses are allowed in the subdivision, and no house can be built which costs less than $4,000. There is a building line of twenty feet on the east and west streets. We shall be glad to have you try to sell this property. However, we do not Avish vou to put a sign on it, as Ave have our own signs up.\nTours truly,\nHalsey & Halsey.\u201d\nThe plat inclosed in the letter shows a subdivision consisting of blocks and lots, and the prices of lots for sale are written in ink on the margin of the plat. Among the lots so marked is one on the northeast corner of Oakland Place and Oakdale avenue, which is the lot in question, and the price of it is marked on the plat $125 per foot.\nThe witness Hutchinson further testified that on receiving the plat, appellants immediately listed the property on their books and exerted efforts to sell it; that in the spring of 1895, appellants had an inquiry about vacant property from Mr. Ohlhorst; that they submitted to him the corner lot in question; that he seemed much pleased with the subdivision ; that the only price appellants could give him was $125 per foot; that he offered $100 per foot and that they then wrote to Halsey the following letter:\n\u201c Chicago, Ill., May 20, 1895.\nMessrs. Halsey & Company :\nGentlemen: We have an offer of $100 per front foot for the corner of Oakdale avenue and Oakland Place. Can you accept this offer ? All cash. Please let us hear from you.\nRespectfully,\nLoehde & Hutchinson.\nAppellee did business under the name \u201c Halsey and Halsey.\u201d\nHutchinson further testified that appellants received no answer to the last letter; that they called at appellee\u2019s office several times, but failed to see him, and that finally Mr. Ohlhorst became impatient and inquired whether there would be anything wrong in his going to see Halsey, when they said no, and gave him Halsey\u2019s address. Appellant Loehde testified substantially as did Hutchinson, and further testified that it was in the afternoon of May 31st when Ohlhorst Avent to see appellee; that he, Loehde, did not see Ohlhorst again for several days, but when he met him,Ohlhorst told him that he met appellee the first time he went to his office, and purchased the lot from him for $3,500, paying $700 down to bind the bargain.\nIt appears from appellee\u2019s testimony that Ohlhorst agreed orally to purchase the lot from him May 31,1895, for $3,500, and signed a contract of purchase June 1, 1895. July 18, 1895, appellants wrote to appellee, stating that they had received no answer to their letter of May 20th, but that Mr. Ohlhorst, their customer, had informed them that he had purchased the lot from him and demanding commissions. To this letter appellee responded July 19,1895, in quite a lengthy letter, expressing surprise and refusing to pay appellants commissions, on the ground that they had never mentioned Ohlhorst\u2019s name to him. Loehde further testified that the commission due at the rate of two and one half per cent with interest -was $103.16, produced and putin evidence a city real estate broker\u2019s license of date May 31,1895, to appellants, and running to May 1,1896, and testified that they had a license for the year 1894, running to May 1,1895, but had lost it, and a certificate of the city clerk was put in evidence showing a license issued to appellants August 9, 1894.\nMr. Ohlhorst testified that appellants first called his attention to the property and gave him appellee\u2019s address. He fully corroborates the testimony of appellants as to what occurred between him and them, and says that when he asked appellee the price of the lot he told him $135 per foot; that he told appellee that Loehde and Hutchinson had offered it to him for $125 a foot, when appellee inquired, \u201c Are you the man who made the offer of $100 a foot?\u201d and witness said yes. The deed of the lot is dated June 1, 1895, and the consideration recited, and which the evidence shows to have been the true consideration, is $3,500. It appears from the evidence that Jarvis & Conklin were the owners of the subdivision in which the lot in question is, until September 25, 1894, and that appellee was their agent in respect to the property until the last mentioned date, when they conveyed the property to John Keene, Jr. After the sale to Keene appellee handled the property for Keene. March 29, 1895, Keene conveyed the property to W. North Duane. After the conveyance to Duane appellee was authorized by Duane to sell the property, and he made the sale to Ohlhorst as Duane\u2019s agent. On these premises appellee\u2019s counsel argue that appellee having ceased to be tibe agent of Jarvis & Conklin upon the conveyance of the property by them to Keene September 25, 1894, months after he authorized appellants to sell the property, their agency terminated and they were no longer authorized to act. The argument proceeds on the hypothesis that appellants dealt with Halsey as an agent; that they knew him to be such, and not the owner. There is no evidence to sustain this hypothesis. The evidence tends to prove the contrary. The conversation between Hutchinson and Halsey on the street car, in which Hutchinson said to appellee, \u201c I see you have some houses and lots for sale in your Woodlands subdivision,\u201d etc., to which appellee answered, \u201c Yes,\u201d would indicate that Hutchinson considered appellee the owner, and there is nothing in appellee\u2019s letter of February 6, 1894, which indicates the contrary. In that letter appellee writes: \u201cWe have vacant lots on Oakland avenue,\u201d etc. \u201c We can pay you a commission of two and one-half per cent,\u201d etc.\nCounsel for appellee seems to rely on the record of the deeds from Jarvis & Conklin to Keene and from Keene to Duane as constructive notice of ownership and change of ownership, and consequently of notice that appellee was an asrent, and not the owner: but the record is constructive notice to creditors and subsequent purchasers only. 1 S. & C. Stat., C. 30, parag. 31.\nSo far as appears from the record, appellee contracted as principal, and did not disclose his agency. In such case, an agent is personally liable as principal. Mechem on Agency, Sec. 554; Wheeler v. Reed, 36 Ill. 82, 89; Bickford v. First Nat\u2019l Bank, 42 Ill. 238, 245.\nIn Wheeler v. Reed, supra, the court cite approvingly Mills v. Hunt, 20 Wend. 433, and say:\n\u201c And the court further held, even when he discloses the name of his principal, if he signs a written contract in his own name merely, which does not show upon its face that he was acting as the agent of another, or in an official capacity for the government, he will be personally bound thereby.\u201d\nIn the present case there was nothing extraordinary or inconsistent in the appellee employing appellants in his own name and agreeing to pay them two and a half per cent commission in the event of a sale. He testified that by agreement he received seven per cent on the sale. Under such agreement he could well afford to pay two and a half per cent to procure a purchaser.\nAppellee\u2019s counsel urges that appellants did not disclose the name of their customer, Mr. Ohlhorst, to appellee. We regard this as immaterial (Adams v. Decker, 34 Ill. App. 17), but the evidence tends to show that before the sale was made appellee knew that Ohlhorst was the person who had been negotiating with appellants.\nWhen Ohlhorst first saw appellee he told him that Loehde and Hutchinson had offered him the property for $125 per foot, and appellee then asked him if he, Ohlhorst, was the man who had offered $100 per foot, and Ohlhorst told him he was. The evidence shows that appellee had, prior to this conversation, received appellants\u2019 letter announcing an offer of $100 per foot for the property.\nAppellee\u2019s counsel urged that appellants had no license prior to August, 1894, and had none in 1895 prior to May 31, 1895. It was May 31, 1895, when they sent Mr. Ohlhorst to appellee, and appellee testified that, May 31, 1895, Mr. Ohlhorst agreed to purchase and appellee to sell, and that June 1, 1895, a written contract of sale was executed. We are of opinion that if appellants were unlicensed when they procured Ohlhorst as a customer or probable purchaser, this would not preclude a recovery, if they were licensed May 31, 1895, when they sent Ohlhorst to appellee, and June 1, 1895, when the written contract of sale was executed.\nLastly, appellee\u2019s counsel argues that appellants are not entitled to a commission because they were merely authorized to sell for a specific price, viz., $125 per foot, and that such being their authority, they can only recover on proof' that they procured a purchaser ready, able and willing to purchase at the specific price. That the purchaser, Ohlhorst, was procured by them is shown by the evidence, and that he was ready, able and willing to purchase the property at $125 per foot, if he could have purchased it at that price, is evidenced by the fact that he purchased it from appellee for something over $127 per foot. The lot is 27-J- feet in width, and the purchase price was $3,500. If a broker procures a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase, and brings such purchaser and the owner together, and the owner sells to the purchaser at a price different from that given by the owner to the broker, the owner can not escape payment of commission by reason of the change in price. Lawrence et al. v. Atwood, 1 Ill. App. 217; Adams v. Decker, 34 Ib. 17; Rees et al. v. Spruance, 45 Ill. 308.\nBeing of opinion that the evidence tended to prove appellants\u2019 case, and therefore that the case should have been submitted to the jury, .the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Adams" } ], "attorneys": [ "Fred H. Atwood and Frank B. Pease, attorneys for appellants.", "Ira J. Geer, attorney for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William Loehde and Charles A. Hutchinson v. Edward A. Halsey.\n1. Jury\u2014Province to Pass upon the Weight of the Evidence.\u2014Where the question, presented by the instruction of the court is whether the evidence tended to prove the plaintiff\u2019s case, if the evidence so tended, the case should have been submitted to the jury, whose province it is to pass upon bhe weight of the evidence.\n3. Records\u2014Constructive Notice to Creditors and Subsequent Purchasers Only.\u2014The record of deeds is constructive notice to creditors and subsequent purchasers only.\n3. Principal and Agent\u2014 Where an Agent is Personally Liable as Principal.\u2014Where an agent contracts as principal and does not disclose his agency, he is personally liable as principal.\n4. Brokers\u2014Commissions, Where the Owner Sells at a Price Different from that Given to the Broker.\u2014If a broker procures a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase, and brings such purchaser and the owner together, and the owner sells to the purchaser at a price different from that given by the owner to the broker, the owner can not escape payment of commission by reason of the change in price.\nAssumpsit, for commissions. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1899.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed May 10, 1900.\nFred H. Atwood and Frank B. Pease, attorneys for appellants.\nIra J. Geer, attorney for appellee." }, "file_name": "0452-01", "first_page_order": 476, "last_page_order": 483 }