{
  "id": 2862628,
  "name": "Joseph Frankel et al., Appellees, v. Sol C. Salzenstein, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Frankel v. Salzenstein",
  "decision_date": "1916-03-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,946",
  "first_page": "363",
  "last_page": "364",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 363"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2463,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "sha256": "03c9c2f5c4cb3d4e3d5027f41f04e78df96f8333b837405cdaecb40579313704",
    "simhash": "1:9092faa7c608246c",
    "word_count": 388
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Frankel et al., Appellees, v. Sol C. Salzenstein, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 50*\u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that servant not wrongfully discharged. In an action against a traveling salesman for the excess of advances over commissions earned, evidence held sufficient to establish that defendant was not wrongfully discharged, and that he quit under an agreement.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014when sufficiency of statement of claim admitted. Upon the question of competency of evidence to support the judgment in an action for the repayment of the excess of plaintiffs\u2019 advances over commissions due defendant as a salesman, where plaintiffs\u2019 statement of claim alleges advances to defendant which defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits admit, and further states the amount of orders upon which defendant is entitled to commissions, and where defendant did not avail himself of the provisions of rules of the Chicago Municipal Court whereby he could have questioned the correctness of such statement or be excused for cause from a specific answer, held that the correctness of plaintiffs\u2019 statement of the account was admitted and it was unnecessary to make detailed proof thereof.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David R. Levy and Douglas C. Gregg, for appellant.",
      "Silver, Isaacs, Silver & Woley, for appellees; Martin J. Isaacs and James D. Woley, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Frankel et al., Appellees, v. Sol C. Salzenstein, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,946.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jacob H. Hopkins, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 27, 1916.\nRehearing denied April 10, 1916.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Joseph Frankel and others, plaintiffs, against Sol C. Salzenstein, defendant for excess of advances, over amount due defendant for commissions which he was alleged to be obligated to repay under the contract of employment. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.\nThe contract commenced to run March 9, 1909, and ended February 28, 1910. It was claimed on behalf of defendant that plaintiffs wrongfully discharged him before the end-of the contract, but there was evidence to the effect that at a meeting between defendant and plaintiffs in December, 1909, or possibly January, 1910, defendant proposed \u201cto quit,\u201d to which plaintiffs agreed.\nDavid R. Levy and Douglas C. Gregg, for appellant.\nSilver, Isaacs, Silver & Woley, for appellees; Martin J. Isaacs and James D. Woley, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0363-01",
  "first_page_order": 387,
  "last_page_order": 388
}