{
  "id": 2973333,
  "name": "Benjamin Devries, Defendant in Error, v. Elaborated Ready Roofing Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Devries v. Elaborated Ready Roofing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-06-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,555",
  "first_page": "536",
  "last_page": "537",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 536"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 2947,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "sha256": "ce11fd2250c6b1f09400d8dc22f3fdd8db61e45016d6241da27aee51ddb978ec",
    "simhash": "1:577fc41dd20908fc",
    "word_count": 472
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:30.955611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Benjamin Devries, Defendant in Error, v. Elaborated Ready Roofing Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. B. Neltnor, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Benjamin Devries, Defendant in Error, v. Elaborated Ready Roofing Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,555.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed June 1, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Benjamin Devries, plaintiff, against Elaborated Ready Roofing Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover balance of commission alleged to be due. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nDefendant was engaged in making, selling and laying roofing. Under a contract made with its manager, plaintiff solicited orders directly from consumers. His contract required him to make an estimate or measurement of the number of \u201csquares\u201d of material (each containing one hundred square feet) each job would require. He was directed how to make the measurements and was allowed an extra square on each job for any discrepancy. His compensation was to be fifteen or twenty per cent, of the selling price, according to the quality of material ordered. After estimating the cost of the job according to the amount and quality of material.it would take, and securing the order at a gross price, he would send in the order and from the price therein named defendant determined the amount of material to supply. Owing to inaccurate measurements on which the gross price of the job was based, it was often found necessary to supply more than an additional square to complete the job, thus necessitating loss on' the contract. These shortages in measurements were discussed when ascertained, and deductions therefor were made from plaintiff\u2019s commissions, and shown on the monthly statement of accounts submitted to plaintiff according to which he was paid. While he objected thereto, \u201che took the money and went right on working,\u201d as testified to by defendant\u2019s manager. Plaintiff himself testified that he was told he would have to stand the \u201ccut\u201d and that the matter was final. After he left defendant\u2019s employ he brought this suit for practically the amount of such deductions.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nAccord and satisfaction, \u00a7 4 \u2014when acceptance of commissions during employment constitutes. Where a salesman employed on a commission basis accepts his commissions less deductions for errors committed by him, though under protest, but continues in the employment after being told that the matter is final and he will have to stand \u201cthe cost,\u201d he cannot, after leaving such employment,' recover the amount of such deductions, as his acceptance of his commissions under such circumstances constituted an accord and satisfaction.\nS. B. Neltnor, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0536-01",
  "first_page_order": 558,
  "last_page_order": 559
}