Buckley v. Humason

• Decision Date: 15 June 1892
• Citation: 50 Minn. 195
• Parties: THOMAS A. BUCKLEY <I>vs.</I> EMMA E. HUMASON <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 195

50 Minn. 195

THOMAS A. BUCKLEY vs. EMMA E. HUMASON et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Argued May 24, 1892.

Decided June 15, 1892.

Appeal by plaintiff, Thomas A. Buckley, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey county, Egan, J., made October 23, 1891, denying his motion for a new trial.

The defendants Emma E. Humason, Idora Montgomery, and Alice Francisco sold to Augustus K. Barnum certain leasehold property and buildings thereon, called Ogden Flats, in Chicago, Ill., in exchange for Midway property in St. Paul, valued at $175,000. The plaintiff was employed by defendants as their broker at Chicago, and he there procured the purchaser, and acted as their agent in the transaction. He brought this action to recover $4,375 commission for his services. The statutes of Illinois provide that the city council in cities shall have power to tax, license, and regulate brokers. The city council of Chicago under this statute adopted an ordinance, that it should be unlawful for any person to exercise within the city, the business of real estate broker without a license, and fixing the license fee at $25 a year, and providing that any person violating any provision of the ordinance should be subject to a penalty of not less than $25, or more than $100, for every violation thereof. At the time plaintiff undertook the employment and during the time of the negotiation and exchange, he had no license as a real estate broker, and was acting in violation of this ordinance. These facts were alleged as a defense and were not denied. When plaintiff's evidence was all in, the court dismissed the action, and plaintiff excepted, and on the appeal here, assigned the dismissal as error.

Stevens, O'Brien & Glenn, and Armand Albrecht, for appellant.

Otis & Godfrey, for respondents.

VANDERBURGH, J.

This action is brought by plaintiff to recover commissions for services as a real-estate agent or broker in procuring a purchaser for certain real estate in Chicago. The cause of action is stated as follows in the complaint: "During the year 1890 the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendants, performed services for said defendants in the city of Chicago, in the state of Illinois, in and about procuring a purchaser for certain property in the state of Illinois, which said services were then and there of the reasonable value of $4,375, and which said sum the defendants agreed and promised to pay plaintiff therefor."

The plaintiff testified that at the time of the alleged services he resided in the city of Chicago. The transactions referred to occurred there, and the negotiations were there concluded, and the contract and purchase were consummated in that city, and the plaintiff claims to be entitled to the usual commissions charged and received in Chicago for such services. He also testified that he had been previously engaged in the real-estate business in Chicago, as an agent, and sold and exchanged property for others on commission, and the transaction in question appears clearly enough to have been in the line of his regular business as a real-estate agent or broker. In this...