{
  "id": 2546675,
  "name": "Christian Ramsaier, Jr., v. Fred Oetting",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ramsaier v. Oetting",
  "decision_date": "1904-06-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 11,383",
  "first_page": "70",
  "last_page": "71",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 Ill. App. 70"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 1603,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "sha256": "fe41828a49aa9baaa04d69e0f158500dc3910ca64878439d82beefe2e362ff6c",
    "simhash": "1:90446fc058bfa028",
    "word_count": 278
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:31.181964+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Christian Ramsaier, Jr., v. Fred Oetting."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Ball\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn March, 1898, appellant hired the minor son of appellee to drive one of his teams at a wage of one dollar per day. This employment continued until January 5, 1899, when the boy quit work. The father sued for the balance due. At the trial he recovered a verdict and judgment for $131.25, from which this appeal is prosecuted.\nAppellant raises two questions: First, that the employment was for a year, and as the son, without reasonable excuse, quit before the contract time had expired, there can be no recovery; and, second, that if a right of recovery exists, the verdict is greater than the amount justly due.\nThe evidence of appellant tends to sustain each of these propositions. That of appellee tends to support a hiring by the day, and to uphold the verdict as to the amount of the damages. These are questions of fact which it was the province and duty of the jury to decide. An examination of the record discloses no reason why we should disturb their finding.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Ball"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter G. Kraft, for appellant.",
      "Philetus Smith, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Christian Ramsaier, Jr., v. Fred Oetting.\nGen. No. 11,383.\n1. Verdict\u2014when, not disturbed. The Appellate Court will not disturb a verdict where no error of law has intervened and only a question of fact is involved, as to which the evidence is contradictory.\nAction of assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Farrand, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1903.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 30, 1904.\nWalter G. Kraft, for appellant.\nPhiletus Smith, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0070-01",
  "first_page_order": 118,
  "last_page_order": 119
}