{
  "id": 5388696,
  "name": "Henry Friedman, Appellee, v. Northwestern Terra Cotta Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Friedman v. Northwestern Terra Cotta Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,829",
  "first_page": "483",
  "last_page": "485",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 Ill. App. 483"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 297,
    "char_count": 4056,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "967fc649e9c7c8c141109e0b97a22d60a8336b727e8a7f3839c0df4e22ec3a42",
    "simhash": "1:5302e1e77daba6d0",
    "word_count": 679
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:45.032867+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Friedman, Appellee, v. Northwestern Terra Cotta Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hugh L. Burnham, for appellant.",
      "George D. Wellington and Rockhold & Busch, for appellee; Francis X. Busch, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Friedman, Appellee, v. Northwestern Terra Cotta Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19, 829.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Adeloe J. Petit, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 6,1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Henry Friedman against Northwestern Terra Cotta Company, a corporation, to recover a sum alleged to be dne to the plaintiff as commissions upon sales of terra cotta products made by him while in the employ of defendant. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $36,536.14, defendant appeals.\nThe facts showed that plaintiff had been in defendant\u2019s employ for many years and was engaged at a salary of $5;000 per year during 1910 and 1911; that in the year 1910, after plaintiff had requested that he be made a stockholder and officer of the company, the vice-president in reply did not make any definite promise as to plaintiff\u2019s request, but said at the end of the year he would pay to plaintiff and others, as a bonus, a \u201cpercentage of the profits\u201d of the business, if any. It appeared that plaintiff was not informed what the percentage was, but at the end of the year 1910 plaintiff was paid $4,198.24. Plaintiff continued in his employment until January 15,1912, when he resigned. Later plaintiff made a request for his percentage for the year 1911 and received a check for $302.86. Plaintiff sought to find out how the percentage was figured but the vice-president refused to tell him. Plaintiff then employed an attorney who, under plaintiff\u2019s express direction and authority, wrote to the vice-president a letter as follows:\nAbstract of the Decision.\nMaster and servant, \u00a7 82 \u2014admissibility of letter written at direction of employee in suit for compensation. In an action to recover a certain commission on sales made of defendant\u2019s products by plaintiff while in defendant\u2019s employment on a salary, where the real issue was whether the defendant verbally agreed to give plaintiff in addition to his salary a certain \u201ccommission\u201d on sales made by him, or a \u201cpercentage of the profits\u201d of the business, as a bonus, a letter written by the attorney of plaintiff at the latter\u2019s direction to the defendant and offered in evidence to impeach plaintiff\u2019s testimony to the effect that the agreement was to give a certain commission on sales, held not to contain an offer to compromise so as to render it inadmissible, and its rejection held prejudicial error.\n\u201cMr. Henry Friedman has called on me in relation to a claim for bonus promised him on contracts closed by him for your company during the year 1911. It is Mr. Friedman\u2019s contention that although a bonus was promised him based on earnings on contracts secured by him, that after he resigned his connection with your company that you advised him that the company had made no money during 1911, and consequently a very nominal bonus was paid. During the year 1910 when Mr. Friedman succeeded in closing only a few contracts a considerable bonus was paid to him, and consequently he continued during 1911 with your company and redoubled his efforts, anticipating a fair remuneration for the same. Tour president, Mr. Hettinger, also held out hopes to Mr. Friedman that he would be more closely associated with your company in an official capacity and would be liberally rewarded at the end of the year on certain good contracts closed in which Mr. Friedman succeeded in obtaining preference and by helping to eliminate from this field certain other contracting companies.\n\u201cIs it not possible to amicably adjust this matter without filing a bill in chancery to compel an accounting? Kindly advise me.\nTours very truly,\nGeo. D. Wellington.\u201d\nHugh L. Burnham, for appellant.\nGeorge D. Wellington and Rockhold & Busch, for appellee; Francis X. Busch, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0483-01",
  "first_page_order": 503,
  "last_page_order": 505
}