Hustis v. Pickands

Decided September 18, 1888

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1888-09-18

Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding. This was an action by plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error to recover for commissions alleged to have been earned by the plaintiffs while acting as brokers, within the corporate limits of the city of Chicago, for the defendants, in the purchase of certain mining stocks. The defendants filed the plea of the general issue and affidavit of merits, also a special plea, to which the plaintiffs interposed a demurrer.

Relies on Braun v. City of Chicago

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-09-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1955

8 state decisions

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 →

McAllister, J.

¶1The ordinance set out in the special plea has been adjudged to be legal and valid. Braun v. Chicago, 110 Ill. 186. While the language of the ordinance is somewhat peculiar, yet we are inclined to the. opinion that it was intended to and does fairly embrace and apply to brokers in stocks. If we are right in that conclusion then it follows, as" we thinkfrom the doctrine of the prevailing current of authorities, that the plaintiffs, being unlicensed as brokers at the time of the purchase by them as such, of the stock in question, their act was unlawful and they can not recover commissions, so that the plea must be held to be good and the judgment affirmed.

¶2Judgment affirmed*