{
  "id": 5410976,
  "name": "A. C. Jackson, Defendant in Error, v. Browning, King & Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. Browning, King & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,088",
  "first_page": "197",
  "last_page": "199",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 197"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2652,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.181548657099301e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47542347063477447
    },
    "sha256": "49906febf534d5e38739e43945e31c515750a143e8f246f7dc56f2a2a8978e6f",
    "simhash": "1:0376e6a7143f90fc",
    "word_count": 432
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. C. Jackson, Defendant in Error, v. Browning, King & Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bentley, Burling & Swan, for plaintiff in error; Willard Brooks, of counsel.",
      "O \u2019Shaughnessy & O\u2019Shaughnessy, for defendant in error; Joseph L. Toohey, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. C. Jackson, Defendant in Error, v. Browning, King & Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,088.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habby P. 'Dolan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 18, 1916.\nRehearing denied December 29, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by A. C. Jackson, plaintiff, against Browning, King & Company, a corporation, defendant, for commissions on sales 'of merchandise by plaintiff as a department manager of defendant\u2019s store. From a judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed $138.79, defendant brings error.\nIn 1909 defendant made a contract with plaintiff that he should be paid a commission of two per cent, on all sales in the hoys\u2019 and children\u2019s department over $75,000 a year. This agreement was renewed verbally each year thereafter and the commissions were paid to plaintiff for the years 1910 and 1911. Defendant\u2019s books of account showed that the total sales in plaintiff\u2019s department for the year 1912 were $92,448.59, of which $6,939.93 were sales to customers having charge accounts.\nBentley, Burling & Swan, for plaintiff in error; Willard Brooks, of counsel.\nO \u2019Shaughnessy & O\u2019Shaughnessy, for defendant in error; Joseph L. Toohey, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 84 -\u2014when evidence sufficient to show that charge items are correct. In an action by a department store manager for commissions on charge sales, evidence held sufficient to show that the charge items did not include charge sales made prior to the year for which plaintiff was claiming commissions.\n2. Master and servant\u2014when master cannot change contract for commissions. A department store cannot change a contract for the payment of commissions to one of its managers by a change in its method of bookkeeping whereby such manager is credited with charge sales at the time they are made instead of at the time they are paid.\n3. Estopped, \u00a7 47*\u2014when defendant estopped to raise defense. A defendant will not be permitted to raise a defense upon a theory inconsistent with its own line of conduct.\n4. Master and servant, \u00a7 84*\u2014when evidence insufficient to show that commissions were not earned. In an action by a department store manager for commissions on charge sales for a specified year, evidence held insufficient to establish the defense that plaintiff did not earn the commissions and that the commissions earned had been paid.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0197-01",
  "first_page_order": 223,
  "last_page_order": 225
}