Case ID: ill-app_210/html/0418-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Niehaus", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George W. Brokhausen, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 6,462.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stephenson county; the Hon. Richard S. Farrand, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Reversed' and remanded.
    Opinion filed November 8, 1917.
    Rehearing denied April 10, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Attachment 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.
    •Leslie 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.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 913
      
      —when bill of exceptions deemed to have been certified on daté 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.
    2. Appeal and error—nonnecessity of dating certificate of bill of exceptions. It is unnecessary that the trial judge date his certificate to a bill of exceptions.
    3. Appeal and error, § 963*—how certified record may not be impeached. A certified' record containing a bill of exceptions cannot be impeached in the Appellate Court by affidavits.
    4. Appeal and error, § 944*—where error in bill of exceptions must be corrected. Any error in a bill of exceptions must be corrected in the trial court.
    5. Principal and agent, § 79*—what 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.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XX to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.