Ely v. King-Richardson Co.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1914 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 9335-9337.,s. 9335-9337. |
| Citation | 106 N.E. 619,265 Ill. 148 |
| Parties | ELY v. KING-RICHARDSON CO; TROSPER v. KING-RICHARDSON CO.; MANVILLE v. KING-RICHARDSON CO.; |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; John Gibbons, Judge.
Three bills, one by Charles E. Ely, one by Robert E. Trosper, one by Bert E. Manville, all against the King-Richardson Company, praying for an accounting and other relief. Decrees for complainants were modified by the Appellate Court (182 Ill. App. 224), and defendant brings certiorari. Judgments of the Appellate Court reversed, and decrees of circuit court affirmed.
Boyle, Mott & Haight, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Alden, Latham & Young, of Chicago, for defendants in error.
Three separate bills in chancery were filed in the circuit court of Cook county against the King-Richardson Company praying for an accounting and other relief. Answers were filed, the causes were referred to a master, and a hearing by the chancellor resulted in decrees granting the relief prayed for. The defendant prosecuted appeals to the Appellate Court for the First District, which modified the decrees. Upon petitions presented by the defendant, writs of certiorari were awarded from this court and the causes have been consolidated for hearing, the questions in all the cases being identical.
The business of the King-Richardson Company is the publication and sale of books through the agency of canvassers. It maintains an office in Chicago for the sale of its publications. The business of this office was conducted by the three complainants, who were called department managers, all the territory in which such business was carried on being divided among them and the entire expense of the maintenance of the office and the conduct of the business in Chicago being divided among them in proportion to the amount of their sales. They were employed under separate written contracts, which gave to each the control of certain territory and the exclusive right to sell the company's publications therein for the period of three years, from January 1, 1908, to December 31, 1910. Each agreed to devote his time and attention exclusively to the management and developmentof the sales of the company's publications upon terms and conditions authorized by it. The duties of each were to employ suitable men as field managers and solicitors of sales; to organize and direct them; to require them to furnish adequate security to cover all money advanced and merchandise shipped to them; to conduct necessary correspondence and keep complete records of their work; to employ and manage the office force employed exclusively in his department; to supervise accounts and co-operate with the auditing department for their prompt collection; to travel in his territory when necessary for the interest of the business; to do all in his power to further the interest of the company and to follow its instructions in the conduct of his department. The company agreed to pay each of the department managers a salary of $150 a month and necessary traveling expenses when working outside the city of Chicago in connection with the business of his department, and at the end of each calendar year to allow him commissions in addition to his salary and expenses, to be determined by charging him with his salary and personal expense account and all salaries, commissions, due bills, and allowances to all employés in his department, together with 39 per cent. of the retail price of all books sold by his department and the actual cost of prospectuses and outfit supplies used therein, and crediting him with all cash receipts from business transacted by his department, plus the credit balance, or less the debit balance, arising from the settlement of the office expense account. In settling this latter account the manager was to be charged with all salaries of stenographers and other office assistants engaged exclusively in the conduct of the business of his department, all stationery, printed matter, office supplies, postage, telegrams, telephone tolls and express used in his department, and that proportion of the total expense of the maintenance of the Chicago office which the net sales of his department bore to the total net sales of the office, and he was to be credited with 9 per cent. of the retail price of the total net sales of his department, except for 1908, when he was to be credited with 10 per cent. The manager was entitled to any excess of receipts above the total charges against him, and was to be furnished commission statements not later than October 25th of each year, including accounts to October 1st, and thereafter not later than the twenty-fifth day of each month, showing accounts up to the first day of the same month, until all business of the fiscal year should be closed. Remittances for sales were made directly to the company and were applied first to the payment of the charges mentioned in the contracts of employment of the department managers. Subsequent collections, as received, were credited to the department managers, and it was the practice of the auditor to give to each of the department managers at the end of each month a check for all money collected from the business in his territory. Some of the accounts prior to July 16, 1910, had been settled by the giving of notes, and these notes had been indorsed by the company's auditor and delivered to the complainants, respectively, and charged to them as if they had received so much money. On July 16, 1910, the complainants were discharged by the company without notice and excluded from its office. The company took possession of the notes mentioned, which were in the desks of the complainants in the company's office. Soon after, the complainants filed these bills for an accounting of the business done prior to 1910, that year not being included because the contracts provided for the accounting in October of each year. Besides the money collected and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reasor v. Marshall
......Misc. 675; Mirkin v. Bowker, 133 A. 41. (20) The purpose of the maxim is to. secure justice and equity and not to aid one in an effort to. acquire property to which he has no right. Sliman v. Moore, 131 S.W.2d 1, 198 Ark. 734; Bichhalter v. Rude, 54 F.2d 823; Ely v. King-Richardson Co., . 106 N.E. 619, 265 Ill. 148. (21) Action will not be defeated. because recovery will inure in part to guilty parties. Davis v. Las Ovas Co., 227 U.S. 80; Rundle v. Winters, 298 P. 929, 37 Ariz. 239; Hunt v. Hunt, 160 A. 358, 10 N.J. Misc. 675; Francis Oil & Refining Co. v. David ......
-
People v. Small
......439] various items to a jury in such a manner as to enable the jurors satisfactorily to determine the amount due, it is definitely settled that the case is one proper for a court of equity. Ely v. King-Richardson Co., 265 Ill. 148, 106 N. E. 619, L. R. A. 1915B, 1052;Kirby v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad Co., 120 U. S. 130, 7 S. Ct. 430, 30 L. Ed. 569. [3][4] Where the purpose of the suit is to require a public official to account for moneys alleged to be wrongfully withheld from ......
-
Reasor v. Marshall, 40809.
...which he has no right. Sliman v. Moore, 131 S.W. (2d) 1, 198 Ark. 734; Bichhalter v. Rude, 54 Fed. (2d) 823; Ely v. King-Richardson Co., 106 N.E. 619, 265 Ill. 148. (21) Action will not be defeated because recovery will inure in part to guilty parties. Davis v. Las Ovas Co., 227 U.S. 80; Ru......
-
Cohon v. Oscar L. Paris Co.
......City of Chicago, 311 Ill.App. 135, at page 158, 35 N.E.2d 545, at page 555, the court said:. '* * * An entire absence of a remedy at law is not necessary but the inadequacy and impracticability of the remedy is equally effective to furnish a ground for equity jurisdiction. Ely v. King-Richardson Co., 265 Ill. 148, 106 N.E. 619, L.R.A.1915B, 1052; People v. Small, 319 Ill. 437, 150 N.E. 435. The jurisdiction of equity for the enforcement of trusts is another ground of its jurisdiction in this case. The enforcement of trusts is peculiarly within the province of a court of equity, and a ......