delivered the opinion of the court.
Hey v. United States Bottlers' Machinery Co., 210 Ill. App. 245 (1918)
April 16, 1918
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 23,262
210 Ill. App. 245
E. A. Hey, Appellee, v. United States Bottlers' Machinery Company, Appellant.
Gen. No. 23,262.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Fry, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
Reversed and judgment here.
Opinion filed April 16, 1918.
Statement of the Case.
Action by E. A. Hey, plaintiff, against United States Bottlers’ Machinery Company, defendant, to recover for a balance, due on account of commissions on orders for the sale of bottle washing and filling machines and tomato pulping machines. From a judgment for plaintiff for $923.75, defendant appeals.
*246Abstract of the Decision.
1. Master and servant, § 66 * —when evidence does not support finding for plaintiff as to right to commissions on machines returned. A finding for plaintiff, in an action to recover commissions on the sale of machines, on the basis of all orders taken, whether returned or not, as to right to payment for machines returned, is improper where the only evidence to sustain the finding is plaintiff’s own testimony, and his testimony on cross-examination is of such a character as to leave the mind in great doubt as to whether his version- of the contract of employment is true, and his evidence is opposed by that of three officers of the defendant as well as by a stipulation between the parties at the time of trial that plaintiff was not seeking to recover items of commission where the machines had been returned.
2. Master and servant, § 71*—when allowances for alterations in unsatisfactory machines or reduction in price are proper in action for commissions. Evidence held to warrant a finding for the allowance to defendant of a certain sum .and deduction thereof *247from commissions earned iby plaintiff, because of alterations in unsatisfactory machines or the granting of a reduction in the price to the purchasers.
*246The orders procured by plaintiff were in writing and contained an express guaranty that the machines would give satisfaction to the purchaser. Subsequently it developed that a number of the pulping machines so shipped proved unsatisfactory and were either returned by the purchasers or were retained after the defendant had made certain alterations in their construction or a suitable allowance in price. Such expenditures or allowances were charged to plaintiff.
'Ashcraft & Ashcraft, for appellant; E. M. Ash-craft & C. F. Bathbun, of counsel.
Longeneoker & Heise, for appellee; Bolla B. Longeneoker, of counsel.