88 N.E. 974 (Ill. 1909), Fox v. Ryan

Citation:88 N.E. 974, 240 Ill. 391
Opinion Judge:FARMER, C.J.
Party Name:FOX v. RYAN.
Attorney:[240 Ill. 392] Adler, Lederer & Schoenbrun, for appellee.
Case Date:June 16, 1909
Court:Supreme Court of Illinois

Page 974

88 N.E. 974 (Ill. 1909)

240 Ill. 391




Supreme Court of Illinois

June 16, 1909

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Axel Chytraus, Judge.

Action by John F. Fox against Patrick Ryan. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

[240 Ill. 392] Adler, Lederer & Schoenbrun, for appellee.


This is an action of assumpsit begun in the superior court of Cook county to recover $4,000 commissions claimed by appellee, plaintiff below, to be due him for services as a broker in effecting a sale of mining stock for appellant. The declaration contained the common counts only, to which the general issue was pleaded.

The appellant and two other parties owned, in round numbers, 156,000 shares of stock in the Golden Star Mining Company, whose property was situated in Utah. The greater portion of the stock was owned by appellant. Appellee is a broker, with offices in the city of Chicago. Peter [240 Ill. 393] L. Kimberly and Louis C. Houck owned the stock of the Annie Laurie Company's mine, which adjoined the Golden Star Mining Company's property. Appellant applied to appellee to negotiate a sale of the stock of the Golden Star Mining Company to Kimberly at the price of $1.35 per share. Appellee testified that appellant told him of the situation of the Annie Laurie and Golden Star properties, that the latter owned or controlled the apex of the Annie Laurie vein, and that it was important to that company to own the Golden Star Company's property. Appellee took the matter up with Kimberly and Houck, and visited the latter's office a number of times. He testified the appellant told him if he would effect a sale of the stock he would pay him 5 per cent. commission; that some time--two weeks or a month--after appellee's employment appellant came to him and told him they would not be able to get the price desired for the stock from Kimberly, and said, 'But I will pay you $4,000 if the deal goes through,' to which appellee replied that would be satisfactory; that he would accept the $4,000, and appellant could go ahead and close up the deal with Kimberly. Appellant denied this conversation about the $4,000, but appellee was corroborated by another witness, and the facts are settled by the judgment of the Appellate Court. Letters written by appellant to appellee offered in evidence show conclusively the employment of appellee by appellant to sell the stock to Kimberly or Houck or both of them. Appellee testified that at the time of the talk about the $4,000 appellant said he would carry on the deal with Kimberly direct. On April 4, 1901, appellant wrote appellee: 'I closed deal with Kimberly last night on the basis I told you about. I leave for Salt Lake City at once, as the deal will have to be closed from that end. I expect to...

To continue reading