{
  "id": 5317039,
  "name": "Nat Fields et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. T. W. Dinkins, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fields v. Dinkins",
  "decision_date": "1910-07-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,739",
  "first_page": "528",
  "last_page": "530",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "156 Ill. App. 528"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "122 Ill. App. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2497252
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/122/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 Ill. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5630580
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/229/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ill. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        841335
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/196/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ill. App. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5303556
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/98/0116-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 4718,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15781055188931864
    },
    "sha256": "c6e35db2eebb6e1e8e4867b87f46ad0a715e2928d64246744e30dbf31baa4538",
    "simhash": "1:96c9f41b6cb0e945",
    "word_count": 781
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:19:00.079639+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nat Fields et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. T. W. Dinkins, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an action for alleged breach of contract. At the conclusion of all the evidence the Municipal Court on motion directed a verdict for defendant and gave judgment against plaintiffs for costs. Plaintiffs seek to reyerse this judgment.\nThe agreement in question is dated April 10th, 1906, and was made and entered into \u201cby and between T. W. Dinkins, Theatrical Manager, of the City, County and State,of New York, party of the first part, and. Fields & Fields, actor or actress, of the second part.\u201d By its first 'danse the second party, plaintiffs herein, contracted to render services to defendant at such times and places in the United States and Canada as defendant might direct \u201cduring the theatrical season of 1906 and 1907; said season to commence and terminate at the option of the party of the first part,\u201d the defendant herein. The second clause provided that the services to be so rendered were \u201cto be as an actor or performer, including both general and special work, \u2018General Business,\u2019 and in choruses, but more especially as he or she may be assigned in the theatrical company or companies designated by the party of the first part.\u201d The third clause is as follows: \u201cThe party of the second part hereby represents and asserts his or her competency and ability to fulfill the services hereby contracted for, to the entire satisfaction and approval of the party of the first part, failing which, at the election of said party of the first part, this contract is to immediately become null and void, without any liability accuring or attaching against the party of the first part thereby.\u201d\nThere are provisions for payment of compensation and other provisions not material to the present controversy. There is evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs started \u201cto rehearse the show the first week in August,\u201d gave the first dress rehearsal and a full performance at Jersey City, a dress rehearsal at Providence where plaintiffs played a week; that they went from there to Boston, Worcester and Brooklyn, playing a week in each town, and from Brooklyn to Albany and Troy, thence to Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, Detroit and Chicago. At the end of the week in Chicago plaintiffs were discharged. It is claimed that defendant had repeatedly expressed satisfaction with the show and that the discharge was in violation of the contract and because plaintiffs refused to lower their salaries.\nOn the part of defendant it is contended that the third clause of the contract gave defendant the right to discharge plaintiffs at any time and for any reason, of the sufficiency of which defendant was the sole judge. By that clause the plaintiffs asserted their competency and ability to fulfill the services they contracted to render \u201cto the entire satisfaction and approval\u201d of the defendant, and failing in this the contract at the defendant\u2019s election became null and void, without liability on the part of defendant thereby. By discharging the plaintiffs the defendant indicated his dissatisfaction and election to nullify the contract. Under such contract the reasons for dissatisfaction were immaterial. The employer is the sole judge of the sufficiency of his reasons and of the fact that such dissatisfaction exists and has the right to discharge the employe for any reason when the latter\u2019s services are not satisfactory. Satisfaction with theatrical services involves questions of taste, fancy and judgment of a personal nature, which the employer alone Can determine. Oases in point are: Crawford v. Mail & Express, 57th Northeastern Rep. (N. Y.) 616; Kendall v. West, 98 Ill. App. 116; Idem, 196 Ill. 221; Temby v. Brunt, 229 Ill. 540; International Harvester Co. v. Boatman, 122 Ill. App. 474-477.\nThe conclusion stated is controlling. We find no error in the action of the trial court in directing a verdict for defendant. The judgment of the Municipal Court will be affirmed.\nAffiimed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adolph Marks, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Lawrence & Folsom;, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nat Fields et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. T. W. Dinkins, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 14,739.\nEmployer and employe\u2014when discharge justified. If an employer is given the right to terminate a contract of employment if the services of the employe are not rendered to his satisfaction, he is the sole judge of the sufficiency, of his reasons and of the fact that such dissatisfaction exists; he has the right to discharge such employe for any reason when the latter\u2019s services are not satisfactory.\nAssumpsit. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habby Olson, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 14, 1910.\nAdolph Marks, for plaintiffs in error.\nLawrence & Folsom;, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0528-01",
  "first_page_order": 552,
  "last_page_order": 554
}