Hawkins v. Taylor, 186 Ill. App. 355 (1914)

April 15, 1914 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen No. 5,872
186 Ill. App. 355
Frank P. Hawkins et al., Appellees, v. Harry L. Taylor, Appellant

Frank P. Hawkins et al., Appellees, v. Harry L. Taylor, Appellant.

Gen No. 5,872.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the County Court of Lake county; the Hon Pebby L. Pebsohs, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Frank P. Hawkins and Bichard W. Hawkins, trading as Frank P. Hawkins and Company, against Harry L. Taylor to recover a commission for the sale of certain real estate belonging to defendant. The jury returned a verdict for'plaintiffs for one hundred and fifty dollars, and in addition a special finding that plaintiffs were the procuring and efficient cause of the sale. From a judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appeals.

Heydecker & Jorgenson and Samuel F. Knox, for appellant.

Henry E. Mason, for appellees.

Mr Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

*356Abstract of the Decision.

1. Brokers, § 90 * —when evidence sufficient to sustain a recovery of commissions. In an action for a commission for selling real estate belonging to defendant, a verdict for plaintiffs and a special finding that plaintiffs were the procuring cause of the sale, held sustained by the evidence, it appearing that defendant had listed the premises with plaintiffs to be sold at a certain price and that the defendant had consummated a sale with a purchaser whom the plaintiffs had negotiated with for the purchase of the property.

2. Brokers, § 48 * —when real estate agents entitled to a commission. Where real estate agents were the procuring and efficient cause of a sale they are entitled to a commission though the owner completed the negotiations.

3. Appeal and error, § 1002 * —when sufficiency of evidence to support verdict not presented for review. Where the abstract does not show that the bill of exceptions contains a motion for a new trial, it does not show that the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is presented by the record. The clerk’s record cannot supply the omission.