{
  "id": 5318748,
  "name": "Max Margulies, Defendant in Error, v. Fred Oppenheimer, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Margulies v. Oppenheimer",
  "decision_date": "1911-01-24",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,184",
  "first_page": "520",
  "last_page": "522",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 Ill. App. 520"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 215,
    "char_count": 3024,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0889550762004062e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7601018437754479
    },
    "sha256": "e844677c036ab2cc698756ea1ea00d96fdea38bf961e65c0af2d22c54e44554c",
    "simhash": "1:d601420f01afb8fc",
    "word_count": 497
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:35.030835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Max Margulies, Defendant in Error, v. Fred Oppenheimer, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baldwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nMax Margulies sued Fred Oppenheimer in the Municipal Court of Chicago, and recovered a verdict and judgment for $196, which judgment Oppenheimer seeks to reverse upon a writ of error.\nOn June 22, 1907, Oppenheimer being then engaged in the general commission business in Chicago, employed Margulies upon a written contract, running till May 1, 1908, at a salary of $25 per week. On December 7, 1907, without previous warning, he discharged Margulies, who sued for loss in wages by reason of his discharge.\nOppenheimer claims he was justified in discharging Margulies, because he found him inattentive to business, and otherwise unsatisfactory, and because the contract between them provided that the employer 1 \u2018for cause, may, at any time, terminate said employment, at his election. Of the cause for discharge, said Fred Oppenheimer shall be the sole judge.\u201d\nOn the trial below, plaintiff (Margulies) contended that he was wrongfully discharged\u2014not for \u201ccause,\u201d as contemplated by the contract, but merely because Oppenheimer thought business too dull to justify paying the salary, and he hoped to re-hire plaintiff, after discharging him, at a much less salary.\nThe evidence was heard by a jury, who had the witnesses before them. The instructions of the court fairly stated the law, and told the jury that, if they believed there was cause for the discharge, they must find for the defendant, if they believed that r j acted in good faith.\nPlaintiff in error seems to contend, however, that Oppenheimer, under the terms of the contract, might lawfully discharge Margulies for any reason. We do not so construe the contract. Margulies\u2019 contract for hiring was for a definite period, subject, however, to termination at any time \u201cfor cause,\u201d but this clearly means such \u201ccause\u201d as is contributed to by Margulies, and not merely an arbitrary act' on the part of the other party to the contract, even though he he, as in this case, \u201cthe sole judge\u201d of the \u201ccause.\u201d\nThe jury was properly instructed; the evidence before them was conflicting. Much depended upon the credibility of the witnesses to determine whether Oppenheimer acted in good faith, and we cannot say the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\n, The judgment must therefore be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baldwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry S. Blum, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Harry C. Levinson, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Max Margulies, Defendant in Error, v. Fred Oppenheimer, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 15,184.\nEmployee and employe\u2014what does not authorise arbitrary discharge. The right to terminate a contract of employment \u201cfor cause\u201d means such cause as is contributed to by the employe and does not authorize an arbitrary discharge by the employer even though he may be the sole judge of the cause.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Judson F. Going, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 24, 1911.\nRehearing denied March 3, 1911.\nHenry S. Blum, for plaintiff in error.\nHarry C. Levinson, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0520-01",
  "first_page_order": 538,
  "last_page_order": 540
}