{
  "id": 5411445,
  "name": "E. H. Levinstein, Defendant in Error, v. D. J. Dalton, trading as Dalton Foundry Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Levinstein v. Dalton",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,487",
  "first_page": "300",
  "last_page": "301",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 300"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2174,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "sha256": "a24373e075499153f20316ebf1c12d079de2fadcf8405ccc6fa76345a2b38f41",
    "simhash": "1:8966de22170f41d8",
    "word_count": 351
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. H. Levinstein, Defendant in Error, v. D. J. Dalton, trading as Dalton Foundry Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas J. Stitt, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Otto L. Kolar, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. H. Levinstein, Defendant in Error, v. D. J. Dalton, trading as Dalton Foundry Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,487.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Muniaipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Stelk, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed December 27, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by E. H. Levinstein, plaintiff, against. D. J. Dalton, trading as Dalton Foundry Company, defendant, on a written contract for commissions on orders secured by plaintiff for the defendant. To review a judgment for plaintiff for $184.72, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nThomas J. Stitt, for plaintiff in error.\nOtto L. Kolar, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Accobd and satisfaction, \u00a7 4 \u2014when cashing of Chech constitutes. In an action for commissions on orders secured by plaintiff for the defendant where the plaintiff returned a check to the defendant, claiming that certain deductions for unprofitable orders had been improperly made by the latter, and the plaintiff cashed the check on its being returned to him by the defendant with a letter stating that such deductions were properly made, held that, the amount due being in dispute between the parties, the defendant\u2019s cashing of the check was an accord and satisfaction, although the plaintiff wrote the defendant that he had placed the amount to the defendant\u2019s credit on account.\n2. Contbacts, \u00a7 377*\u2014what evidence admissible to show subsequent modifications. In an action on a written contract for commissions on orders secured by plaintiff for the defendant, held that correspondence and conversations between the parties were properly admitted to show that the terms of the contract had subsequently been modified by verbal agreements.\n3. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 450*\u2014when rulings on evidence not considered on appeal. Error assigned on admission of evidence will not be considered on appeal in the absence of objection thereto in the trial court.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0300-01",
  "first_page_order": 326,
  "last_page_order": 327
}