{
  "id": 5820580,
  "name": "George W. Brokhausen, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brokhausen v. Ford Motor Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-11-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,462",
  "first_page": "418",
  "last_page": "419",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 418"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 2958,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "sha256": "93b5279604ab168f4fb22ad5e414335ec17e9e35d483586361e0f6d10c880326",
    "simhash": "1:0253d9147e3e9db2",
    "word_count": 485
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George W. Brokhausen, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Niehaus\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Niehaus"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u2022Leslie B. Bobertson, of Detroit, Mich., Depress, Buckingham & Eaton, of Chicago, 111. and Elwyn B. Shaw, of Freeport, 111., for appellant.",
      "Charles H. Green, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George W. Brokhausen, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 6,462.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Stephenson county; the Hon. Richard S. Farrand, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nReversed' and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 8, 1917.\nRehearing denied April 10, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAttachment proceedings by George W. Brokhausen, plaintiff, against Ford Motor Company, defendant, to recover an amount claimed to be due plaintiff for commissions as agent for defendant, under a written contract of agency. From a judgment for plaintiff for $384.22, defendant appeals.\n\u2022Leslie B. Bobertson, of Detroit, Mich., Depress, Buckingham & Eaton, of Chicago, 111. and Elwyn B. Shaw, of Freeport, 111., for appellant.\nCharles H. Green, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 913 \u2014when bill of exceptions deemed to have been certified on dat\u00e9 of purported filing. A bill of exceptions signed by a trial judge under date of October 31st and preceded by a certificate of the clerk, which said that the bill of exceptions was filed October 30th, and followed after the certificate of the judge by the filing by the clerk on October 30th, must be construed as having been certified on October 30th, the date 31st being a mistake.\n2. Appeal and error\u2014nonnecessity of dating certificate of bill of exceptions. It is unnecessary that the trial judge date his certificate to a bill of exceptions.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 963*\u2014how certified record may not be impeached. A certified' record containing a bill of exceptions cannot be impeached in the Appellate Court by affidavits.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 944*\u2014where error in bill of exceptions must be corrected. Any error in a bill of exceptions must be corrected in the trial court.\n5. Principal and agent, \u00a7 79*\u2014what is condition precedent to recovery of added commissions under automobile agency contract. Under a contract of agency for the sale of automobiles, providing that it is agreed that certain added commissions shall not be paid the agent until the latter furnishes satisfactory evidence to the principal that all commissions and \" added commissions, due or owing, or which may later Become due or owing, the sublimited agents under the agent, have been fully paid, or until satisfactory arrangements with the principal for insuring payment of such commissions to the subagents have been made, it is necessary that the agent prove, as a condition precedent to his right to recover for the commissions claimed, that he has furnished to the principal satisfactory evidence that there were no commissions due the sub-agents, or which might later become due to them, or to prove satisfactory arrangements with the principal as to insuring their payment.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XX to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0418-01",
  "first_page_order": 444,
  "last_page_order": 445
}
