Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

190 Ill. App. 51

Willoughby v. Brown

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 21, 1914

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1914-12-21

<p>1. Principal and agent, § 113*—when agent may employ brolcer. Authority to sell or lease does not imply authority in the agent to employ a broker.</p> <p>2. Principal and agent, § 168*—when agent is individually liable. An agent who employs a broker to procure a lessor for premises is individually liable for the services of such broker, when his act is not authorized, even though such agent has no interest in the property involved.</p> <p>3. Appeal and error, § 1238*—when appellant cannot complain of error below. In a suit by brokers for commissions in procuring a tenant against an agent and an owner of property, it could not he contended that there could he no recovery against the agent alone, when the plaintiff, before verdict, dismissed the suit as to the owner.</p> <p>4. Municipal corporations, § 103*—when ordinance must be proved. The court cannot take judicial notice of an ordinance.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“‘ ‘ Mary E. Ryan was the owner of the real estate and had given Brown a power of attorney to sell and convey the same. The power of attorney did not give authority to lease, nor did it give authority to employ a broker. Brown stated to plaintiffs that he was authorized to lease said real estate. Authority to sell or lease does not imply authority in the agent to employ a broker. Doggett v. Greene, 254 Ill. 134 . “The promise by Brown to pay defendant for this service in finding a man ready, able and willing to accept a lease was binding on him individually. Sadler v. Young, 78 N. J. Law 594. “It was not necessary that Brown have any interest in the property placed by him in the hands of plaintiffs, to bind him personally by a promise to pay commissions.” (Citing Doggett v. Greene, 254 Ill. 134, 139 .)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lustig v. Hutchinson

Relies on Malleable Iron Range Co. v. Pusey · Doggett v. Greene

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1914-12-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1953

5 state decisions

2019141920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Baker

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This writ of error brings in review a judgment entered, on a verdict for plaintiffs against plaintiff in error Brown in the Municipal Court on an agreement to pay plaintiffs $846 as commissions for finding a tenant ready and willing to accept a lease for ninety-nine years of certain real estate on the. terms offered by Brown.

¶3Mary E. Eyan was the owner of the real estate and had given Brown a power of attorney to sell and convey the same. The power of attorney did not give authority to lease, nor did it give authority to employ a broker. Brown stated to plaintiffs that he was authorized to lease said real estate. Authority to sell or lease does not imply authority in the agent to employ a broker. Doggett v. Greene, 254 Ill. 134.

¶4The promise by Brown to pay defendant for this service in finding a man ready, able and willing to accept a lease was binding on him individually. Sadler v. Young, 78 N. J. Law 594.

¶5It was not necessary that Brown have any interest in the property placed by him in the hands of plaintiffs, to bind him personally by a promise to pay commissions. Payne v. Twitchell, 81 N. J. Law 193.

¶6It is a sufficient answer to the contention that as the suit was originally against Brown and Mrs. Eyan, there could be no recovery against Brown alone, that the plaintiff, before verdict, dismissed as to Mrs. Eyan. Malleable Iron Range Co. v. Pusey, 244 Ill. 184.

¶7There is in the record no ordinance requiring real estate brokers to be licensed.. This court cannot take judicial notice of an ordinance, and the contention of plaintiff in error that the judgment must be reversed because no license was proved is without merit.

¶8We think that on the facts shown by this record the jury properly found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the judgment is affirmed.

¶9Affirmed.

/190/illapp/51 · .json · Public domain