From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ferro v. Daros

Appellate Court of Illinois
Feb 16, 1948
333 Ill. App. 386 (Ill. App. Ct. 1948)

Opinion

Gen. No. 44,216. (Abstract of Decision.)

Opinion filed February 16, 1948 Released for publication March 2, 1948

JUDGMENTS, § 5.1summary judgment when question of fact presented. In action by plaintiff vendors to recover sum of money deposited by vendees in escrow with defendant real estate broker, where defendant filed counterclaim and motion for summary judgment for commission allegedly due, and plaintiff's affidavits in opposition presented question of fact as to right of broker to recover any commission, trial court was obliged under law to try such controverted issue, and could not allow summary judgment for portion of claimed commission.

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. EUGENE J. HOLLAND, Judge, presiding.

Judgment reversed. Heard in the first division, first district, this court at the October term, 1947.

Arthur S. Bluestein, for appellants;

Allen, Darlington Elliott, for appellee;

Glynn J. Elliott, of counsel.


Not to be published in full. Opinion filed February 16, 1948; released for publication March 2, 1948.


Summaries of

Ferro v. Daros

Appellate Court of Illinois
Feb 16, 1948
333 Ill. App. 386 (Ill. App. Ct. 1948)
Case details for

Ferro v. Daros

Case Details

Full title:Emil and Marjorie Ferro, Appellants, v. John P. Daros, Appellee

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois

Date published: Feb 16, 1948

Citations

333 Ill. App. 386 (Ill. App. Ct. 1948)
77 N.E.2d 566

Citing Cases

Morris v. Anderson

Therefore, the trial court erred when it granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. Ferro v. Daros, 333…

Lundin v. Egyptian Construction Co.

Plaintiffs have done nothing to contest this allegation. It is clear that where opposing affidavits present a…