{
  "id": 2860380,
  "name": "Charles Brachas, Defendant in Error, v. Sabath & Weisskopf Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brachas v. Sabath & Weisskopf Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-03-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,723",
  "first_page": "357",
  "last_page": "358",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 357"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 212,
    "char_count": 3474,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "sha256": "82c9dacd5d9926835ff79d46caedc7102095a2701fce8e0e9e42e568477e66cb",
    "simhash": "1:0156c08dd16c8098",
    "word_count": 548
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Brachas, Defendant in Error, v. Sabath & Weisskopf Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sabath, Stafford & Sabath, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Benjamin B. Morris, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Brachas, Defendant in Error, v. Sabath & Weisskopf Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,723.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 27, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Charles Brachas, plaintiff, against Sabath & Weisskopf Company, defendant, for $529. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error.\nPlaintiff alleged that he had deposited $500 with defendant as security that Anton Lechowicz would turn over to defendant all collections made by him while employed by defendant; that when it was done, the deposit was to be returned to plaintiff with five per cent, interest; that subsequently Lechowicz left the employ of defendant, having turned over to it all moneys collected by him.\nDefendant in its affidavit of defense said that Lechowicz, employed as salesman and collector, made collections aggregating $190.75 which he failed to turn over to defendant, also that he was indebted to defendant for a balance on his merchandise and cash account, also for an item of expense incurred by defendant in verifying accounts among the trade, also for commissions advanced on sales where the accounts were not collected. The trial court struck from defendant\u2019s affidavit the last three items just described and entered judgment against defendant for the difference between the amount of plaintiff\u2019s claim, $529, and $190.75, the collections said not to have been turned in, which is $338.25. The court reserved jurisdiction of the balance of plaintiff\u2019s claim for future determination. The condition of the deposit of the $500 was stated in the written agreement of the parties to be to secure defendant \u201cagainst any loss from dishonesty, misconduct or neglect of business\u201d of Lechowicz.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Indemnity, \u00a7 11\u2014what is extent of liability on contract indemnifying against loss from dishonesty, misconduct or neglect of business by salesman. The condition of a deposit of a specified sum, stated to be the securing of defendant \u201cagainst any loss from dishonesty, misconduct or neglect of business\u201d of defendant\u2019s salesman has reference to any indebtedness due defendant or loss sustained through dishonesty, neglect or misconduct of such salesman including loss due to failure to turn over collections, and 'does not include balance against such salesman on his merchandise and cash account, an item of expense incurred by defendant in verifying accounts among the trade or commissions on sales where accounts were not collected.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014when affidavit of merits sufficient. In an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago to recover a deposit stated to be for the security of. \u201cdefendant against any loss from dishonesty, misconduct or neglect of business\u201d of defendant\u2019s salesman, an allegation in defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits of such salesman\u2019s failure to turn over collections, held sufficient as it placed\" in issue the allegation \"of plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim that such salesman, when he left defendant\u2019s employ, had turned over all moneys collected by him.\nSabath, Stafford & Sabath, for plaintiff in error.\nBenjamin B. Morris, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0357-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 382
}