{
  "id": 5314819,
  "name": "August Fank, Appellee, v. Frank R. Crane, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fank v. Crane",
  "decision_date": "1910-05-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,095",
  "first_page": "643",
  "last_page": "645",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "154 Ill. App. 643"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 4911,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "sha256": "353d56f56d1e37e5d375c470115b8e5c8419c078928679b79bbc72018526bf3b",
    "simhash": "1:9082c9300a1e35b8",
    "word_count": 822
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:57.746744+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "August Fank, Appellee, v. Frank R. Crane, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Justice Bakee\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis action was brought before a justice of the peace to recover damages for a breach of a contract of employment, and was taken to the Superior Court by appeal. In that court plaintiff had judgment for $200 damages and the defendant appealed.\nThe contention of plaintiff was that he was hired by defendant to manage defendant\u2019s farm for a year from May 1,1905, at $50 a month, and was to have a house to live in and certain other articles, and that he was discharged October 31, without just cause.\nThe grounds of reversal urged are that the verdict is against the evidence, that the court erred in modifying defendant\u2019s instruction 3, and in refusing defendant\u2019s instruction 4. The contention of appellant is that the evidence fails to prove the existence of a contract for a year, and that the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff was not discharged, but voluntarily left his employment, and that his conduct was such as to justify his discharge.\nThe evidence is conflicting, but we think that from the evidence the jury might properly find that plaintiff was employed for a year; that he did not voluntarily quit his employment, but was discharged by defendant October 31; that his conduct was not such as to justify defendant in discharging him, and therefore that the verdict cannot be said to be against the evidence. Defendant\u2019s instruction 3 as given is as follows:\n\u201cThe jury are instructed that the plaintiff must prove his case by a preponderance or greater weight of evidence; therefore, if the evidence in this case on plaintiff\u2019s case preponderates in favor of the defendant, or if the evidence fails to preponderate in favor of the plaintiff, or if you are unable to say on which side is the greater weight of evidence, you should find the issues for the defendant.\u201d\nAs asked the instruction did not contain the words in italics, bnt they were added by the court.\nWe think the instruction should have been given as asked, but we think that the meaning of the instruction was not changed or affected by adding the words, \u201con plaintiff\u2019s case\u201d, and therefore that the modification of the instruction was not harmful to the defendant. I Eefused instruction 4 is as follows:\n\u201cThe court instructs the jury that when a person is employed by another he must, in his intercourse with his employer and those having control of his business and with those doing business with such employer, be obedient to the reasonable commands of his employer and those having control of his business and must work in harmony with his fellow-employes; and a failure in any of these requirements would be good ground for discharging such person before his term of employment expires.\u201d\nWe think this instruction was properly refused. It was plaintiff\u2019s duty to conduct himself properly towards his fellow-employes, but the instruction asked made it his absolute duty to \u201cwork in harmony\u201d with them, no matter what their conduct was.\nWe find no error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Justice Bakee"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William J. Stapleton, for appellant.",
      "No appearance by appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "August Fank, Appellee, v. Frank R. Crane, Appellant.\nGen. No. 15,095.\n1. Instructions\u2014when modification as to preponderance of evidence will not reverse. Held, that the modification consisting in the insertion of the italicized words in the following instruction, while subject to criticism, did not constitute ground for reversal.\n\u201cThe jury are instructed that the plaintiff must prove his case by a preponderance or greater weight of evidence; therefore, if the evidence in this case on plaintiff\u2019s case preponderates in favor of the defendant, or if the evidence fails to preponderate in favor of the plaintiff, or if you are unable to say on which side is the greater weight of the evidence, you should find the issues for the defendant.\"\n2. Instructions\u2014when, upon fellow-servant doctrtne, properly refused. Held, that the following instruction was properly refused; that while it was the plaintiff\u2019s duty to conduct himself properly towards his fellow-servants, it was not his absolute duty to \u201cwork in harmony\u201d with them no matter what their conduct was.\n\u201cThe court instructs the jury that when a person is employed by another he must, in his intercourse with his employer and those having control of his business and with those doing business with such employer, be obedient to the reasonable commands of his employer and those having control of his business and must work in harmony with his fellow-employes; and a failure in any of these requirements would be good ground for discharging such person before his term of employment expires.\u201d\nAction commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Mabcus Kavanagh, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 2, 1910.\nWilliam J. Stapleton, for appellant.\nNo appearance by appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0643-01",
  "first_page_order": 659,
  "last_page_order": 661
}