Pardue v. Hart, 207 Ill. App. 414 (1917)

Oct. 10, 1917 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 22,634
207 Ill. App. 414
Kate E. Pardue and Harry A. Pardue, Appellants, v. E. Orris Hart, trading as E. Orris Hart & Company et al., Appellees

Kate E. Pardue and Harry A. Pardue, Appellants, v. E. Orris Hart, trading as E. Orris Hart & Company et al., Appellees.

Gen. No. 22,634.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Exchange of pbopebty, § 1 * — when evidence shows that name of party was on contract at time of execution. Evidence of the parties and a stipulation that a bill of complaint set up a true and correct copy of an agreement for exchange of property as executed by the parties, and in the agreement the name of one of the parties appeared, held sufficient to show that the name of such party appeared in the contract at the time it was made.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscab E. Heabd, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 10, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Bill by Kate E. Pardue and Harry A. Pardue, complainants, against E. Orris Hart, trading as E. Orris Hart & Company, Edwin H. Abbott and R. G-. Ingersoll, defendants, for an accounting for profits belonging to complainants and secretly kept by defendants in certain real estate transactions, in all of which defendant Hart acted as broker, and defendant Ingersoll as salesman for Hart.

From a judgment for defendants, complainants appeal.

Spencer Ward, for appellants.

George W. Stockwell, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

*4152. Brokers, § 25 * — when evidence does not show receipt of excessive fees. Evidence held insufficient to show that real estate brokers in the three deals made in the course of the indirect exchange of property through a third person received more than their legitimate fees.

3. Brokers, § 25* — when evidence shows that broker used best endeavors in behalf of owners. In a suit against brokers and a third person acting as a medium for the indirect exchange of real estate for an accounting of profits, evidence held insufficient to show that such person acted in a fiduciary capacity or that the brokers used other than their best endeavors in behalf of complainants.