¶1delivered the opinion of the court.
187 Ill. App. 338
Rothbaum v. Solomon
Decided June 15, 1914
Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1914-06-15
<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Continuance, § 10*—when denial of motion not an abuse of discretion. Refusal of court to grant a motion made by defendants’ attorney for a continuance when the case was called for trial on the ground that he had learned only the evening before that the case would be called for trial and that he had been unable to communicate with his clients as they were out of the city, held not an abuse of the court’s discretion where no affidavits were then presented making any showing as to diligence or as to a meritorious defense.</p> <p>2. Bbokebs, § 93*—when direction of verdict for commissions not improper. In an action to recover commissions for negotiating an exchange of real estate for defendants, the giving of an instruction directing a verdict for plaintiffs, held not improper, where no evidence was offered by defendants, and by the terms of the contract, which it was admitted by defendants’ affidavit of defense was executed by them, a certain sum was to become due plaintiffs though the deal was not consummated, provided such failure.of consummation was due to the fault of defendant, and the uncontradicted evidence disclosed the failure of consummation to be their fault.</p> <p>3. Bbokebs, § 80*—when proof of tender of deed for exchange of real estate unnecessary to recover commissions. In an action to recover commissions for negotiating an exchange of real estate, where defendants agreed to pay commissions if the deal was not consummated because of their fault, held it was not incumbent on plaintiffs to prove that a deed had been tendered to defendants, where the evidence disclosed that the defendants unconditionally-refused to consummate the deal.</p> <p>4. Appeal and ebrob, § 1520*-—when direction of verdict for an excessive amount harmless. Error of court in directing a verdict for plaintiff for an amount not warranted by the evidence cannot be complained of where the amount was corrected by a remittitur and judgment was entered for the proper amount.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1924
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1914-06-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →