#### R. A. Teach, Appellant, v. Allen Automobile Company, Appellee.

Gen. No. 23,592.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Forfeitures, § 1 * —policy of law as to forfeitures. The law does not favor forfeitures in contracts.

2. Principal and agent—when agency contract construed as providing that deposit insures balance due principal. An agency-contract for the sale of automobiles for a certain period, reciting that the agent had deposited a certain sum with the principal, which was not to be applied towards the purchase of cars, but was to be retained by the principal and returned to the agent upon cancellation or termination of the contract, provided a full settlement of all accounts was made, and giving the list price of auto*200mobiles but not the. net price, which was given in a subsequent letter, must, although the agent purchases only one car, be construed as simply insuring any balance that might be due the principal. ’

*199Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.

Reversed and judgment here.

Opinion filed April 3, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action by R. A. Veach, plaintiff, against Allen Automobile Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover the sum of $150 deposited with defendant, .to be returned upon cancellation or termination of an agency contract for the sale of automobiles, and upon the making of a full settlement. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

George T. Crossland, for appellant.

Frederic R. DeYoung, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.