
    E. F. Staff, Defendant in Error, v. A. Steiger, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,611.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Brokers, § 90
      
      —sufficiency of evidence to show plaintiff was procuring cause. In an action for broker’s commissions for finding a tenant for defendant where a verdict on conflicting evidence was returned for plaintiff, held that the verdict would not be disturbed on the ground the evidence did not show plaintiff was the procuring cause of the demise, there being a legitimate inference from the evidence that the prospective tenant’s attention was first called to the property by plaintiff and that the lease which was actually made was the result, and it also appearing that the tenant who would have been the best witness was not called, from which the jury may have drawn an inference unfavorable to the defendant.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Jr., Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 8, 1914.
    Rehearing denied October 20, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by E. F. Staff against A. Steiger to recover broker’s commissions alleged to have been earned in securing for defendant a tenant for certain premises on State street in Chicago. Upon a trial before a jury a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff for $766.30. To reverse a judgment entered on the verdict, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    Weinberg & Grollman, for plaintiff in error; Frank & Lurie, of counsel.
    George H. Mason, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court..

2. Brokers, § 84 —admissibility of evidence. In an action" to recover broker’s commissions for finding a tenant for defendant, refusal to permit defendant to testify to the amount of rental -he was paying held not error, for the reason the fact sought to be elicited had little bearing on the issues involved.  