{
  "id": 2478688,
  "name": "Bert Armstrong v. Peter Van DeNeste",
  "name_abbreviation": "Armstrong v. Van DeNeste",
  "decision_date": "1907-03-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 4,758",
  "first_page": "601",
  "last_page": "604",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 Ill. App. 601"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 5012,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.345434925059198e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2732825350049366
    },
    "sha256": "386e5f6111bd4c978175a6e0fcf392971406bc966e8c74171909f5fa74f60c4b",
    "simhash": "1:7fdf71364a0ece34",
    "word_count": 859
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:37.667193+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bert Armstrong v. Peter Van DeNeste."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Willis\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action originally commenced before a justice -of the peace of Henry county by Peter Van De Neste, a minor, who sued by his next friend, against appellant, Bert Armstrong. There was a trial and judgment for appellee. The case was taken on appeal to the Circuit Court of said county where a trial was had resulting in a verdict in appellee\u2019s favor for fifty dollars, a motion for a new trial was overruled, judgment entered on the verdict and the case brought to this court by appeal.\nThe evidence shows that the action was commenced to recover upon a quantum meruit for work and labor done and performed by appellee, Peter Van De Neste, while a minor, for the appellant, Bert Armstrong. It appears from the evidence- that appellee, while a minor, worked for appellant from the 20th day of February, 1905, to the 5th day of July, following, and' then left his service; and that he was to receive as wages twenty-four dollars per month and board and washing until after threshing. A number of witnesses testified as to the value of his services, and the amount of the judgment is not questioned if he had a right of recovery.\nAppellant\u2019s contention is that the work and labor sued for was done and performed under an entire contract, and that appellee abandoned the contract without cause and thereby forfeited his right of recovery. Admitting appellee\u2019s minority, and that the original' undertaking was voidable, appellant urges in support of his position, a ratification of the original contract by appellee\u2019s father. The evidence discloses that in April, after appellee began work in February, appellant met Bruno Van De Neste, father of appellee, and they had a conversation about appellee and the terms of his employment. Appellant testified that he told the father that Peter was sick and that he had hired him for twenty-four dollars, board and washing, per month, until after threshing, and that the father said all right, if Peter paid for his clothes and his doctor\u2019s bills he wanted half his wages, and if he didn\u2019t, he wanted all his wages. The father testified that he said he would like half his son\u2019s wages if he could get them; if not, his son might, have them all and he would not bother him any more. In June, appellant paid appellee thirty dollars, and other amounts later, without consulting the father, who, in May following, published a notice giving the son his time and the right to collect his wages, and caused a letter to be written appellant notifying him of the fact, and on the trial testified that he had not received any of appellee\u2019s wages, did not want any, but wanted him to have them all. The evidence does not support appellant\u2019s contention of a ratification of the original contract of employment but creates a presumption of the emancipation of the son; and we must hold he had a right to recover upon the implied contract arising from his services or a quantum meruit, and a recovery by appellee under the circumstances would bar any action the father might institute.\nComplaint is made of the refusal of the court to permit appellant to show when the threshing season of 1905 was over, and what appellee said his reasons were for quitting appellant\u2019s service. To show when the threshing season ended, or any reason assigned by appellee for quitting appellant\u2019s service, would not tend to' make a defense to the action, and the objections were properly sustained.\nComplaint is also made that appellant\u2019s cross-examination of appellee\u2019s father was unduly restricted. The object of the testimony excluded was to impeach his evidence upon an immaterial issue, and there was no error in sustaining the objections thereto.\nComplaint is also made of the first and second instructions given on behalf of appellee. The first advised the jury how to compute the amount due, if any, and that the recovery would be upon a quantum meruit. The second stated: \u201cThe jury are instructed that there is no contract in this case of any kind, except an implied contract for the payment of services rendered.\u201d Each was correct in principle and applicable to the evidence and properly given.\nIt is. urged that the trial court erred in refusing to give instructions numbers eight and ten asked by appellant. Neither was supported by the evidence, nor in harmony with the law' given for appellee, and there was no error in their refusal.\nThe verdict meeting our approval, and finding no material error of law in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Willis"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harry A. Reherd, for appellant.",
      "Harry E. Brown, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bert Armstrong v. Peter Van DeNeste.\nGen. No. 4,758.\n1. Impeachment\u2014when cannot Be made. A witness cannot be impeached, by contradicting him as to immaterial matters.\nAction commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon. Emery C. Graves, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1906.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 13, 1907.\nHarry A. Reherd, for appellant.\nHarry E. Brown, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0601-01",
  "first_page_order": 617,
  "last_page_order": 620
}