¶1delivered the opinion of the court.
189 Ill. App. 426
Egeland v. Scheffler
Decided November 10, 1914
Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1914-11-10
<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Fraud, § 115*—where evidence is insufficient to establish. The evidence is held to fail to establish false representations alleged to have been made by a broker as to the amount an incumbrance on certain property such as to defeat foreclosure of a mortgage executed to secure a note given in payment of commissions.</p> <p>2. Brokers, § 91*—what constitutes fraud on the part of a broker. Where it is not shown that a broker knew that his representations were false as to the amount of a trust deed or that the purchasers and makers of a note relied upon them, recovery cannot be defeated in the foreclosure of a trust deed to secure a note given as the broker’s commission.</p> <p>3. Appeal and error, § 973*—what essential to preserve ordinance for review. In order to make available on appeal a city ordinance, making it unlawful for a person to act in the capacity of a broker in the city without a license, it should be introduced in evidence, as the Appellate Court will not take judicial notice of city ordinances.</p> <p>4. Brokers, § 12*—when contracts of unlicensed brokers not invalid. Where a contract for the payment of a commission for the exchange of real estate is made in another State (Michigan), a city ordinance making it unlawful for a person to act in the capacity of a broker in a city within the State (Illinois) has no application such as to render the contract invalid.</p> <p>5. Bills and notes, § 240*—what constitutes a bona fide purchaser. In a suit to foreclose a trust deed executed to secure a note given in payment for procuring the exchange of real estate, the evidence is held to show that complainant took the note, after inquiry, without notice of any defenses.</p> <p>6. Brokers, § 62*—when agreement to divide commissions not invalid. In a suit to foreclose a trust deed executed to secure a note given in payment of the brokers’ commissions, the evidence is held to show that the makers knew of the agreement between the brokers to pool or divide commissions received from their respective customers.</p>
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1955
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1914-11-10
View the full empirical analysis of this case →