{ "id": 2779743, "name": "William H. Chadwick, Plaintiff in Error, v. Morris & Company, Defendant in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Chadwick v. Morris & Co.", "decision_date": "1912-04-19", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,853", "first_page": "569", "last_page": "570", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "170 Ill. App. 569" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "30 Ill. App.. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2421963 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/30/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 226", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5153080 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "376" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/59/0226-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ill. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2453311 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/29/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 Ill. App. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2510062 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/126/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 Ill. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3339140 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/222/0206-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 267, "char_count": 3555, "ocr_confidence": 0.545, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8284049438237694e-07, "percentile": 0.7203723074202396 }, "sha256": "9eeee16d748f189ba6ba2b3807d051c3669fd73ad2fc26c6d8a2c294c5e77b7c", "simhash": "1:fffa765a95884cfc", "word_count": 616 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:54.735908+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "William H. Chadwick, Plaintiff in Error, v. Morris & Company, Defendant in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice F. A. Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a judgment of the municipal court against William H. Chadwick, plaintiff in error, who sued Morris & Company, defendant in error, to recover the balance of a yearly salary of $1,500. The plaintiff claimed that he had been discharged by the defendant without fault on his part. The trial court instructed the jury for the defendant, and entered judgment on the verdict.\nWe recognize the law to be as contended by plaintiff that a peremptory instruction should not be given where there is any evidence, which, with all reasonable inferences and intendments to tie drawn from it, fairly tends to prove plaintiff\u2019s case. (Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Cook, 222 Ill. 206; Clark v. C. R. I. & P. R. R., 231 id. 549; Waschow v. Kelly Coal Co., 245 id. 516.) But the difficulty with plaintiff\u2019s case is that in our opinion the evidence of the plaintiff does not tend to prove a yearly employment. We do not think plaintiff\u2019s testimony tends to prove a definite hiring for a year at $1,500 or that the contract was so understood Toy both parties. The plaintiff testified: \u201cI told him (Borders) that the least I would go for was fifteen hundred a year; and he said \u2018all right\u2019.\u201d This can in no way be construed into a definite hiring for one year. (Bunnel v. Rosenberg, 126 Ill. App. 196; Pfund v; Zimmermann, 29 Ill. 269.) The evidence shows that the minds of the parties met only as to the amount or rate of compensatiqn.\nThe term of employment was at will, and if the defendant was in good faith dissatisfied with the plaintiff and his work it had the right to discharge the plaintiff even though its dissatisfaction was not founded in reason. (Alexis Stoneware Mfg. Co. v. Young, 59 Ill. App. 226; Gray v. Wulff, 68 id. 376; Griffin v. Domas, 22 id. 203.)\nIf the testimony can be considered as showing a meeting of the minds of the parties on the question of a yearly employment and that the contract was one to employ the plaintiff for a certain definite time, the proof carries the contract within the statute of frauds'. The conversation occurred on September second. The plaintiff told Borders that he would like to have ten days to close up his work, meaning his legal practice. Plaintiff was placed on the pay-roll September 8th when,he began his services. No written contract or memorandum was shown. This brings the contract within the statute. (Haynes v. Mason, 30 Ill. App.. 85.)\nThe judgment is without error and is affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice F. A. Smith" } ], "attorneys": [ "William H. Chadwick, plaintiff in error, pro se; Charles S. Knudson of counsel.", "West & Eckhart, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William H. Chadwick, Plaintiff in Error, v. Morris & Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 16,853.\n1. Instructions\u2014when peremptory should not be given. A peremptory instruction should not be given where there is any evidence which, with all reasonable inferences and intendments to be drawn therefrom, fairly tends to prove the plaintiff\u2019s case.\n2. Contracts\u2014what does not establish contract of employment for definite period. \u201cI told him that the least I would go for was fifteen hundred a year and he said \u2018all right,\u2019 \u201d does not establish a hiring for a year.\n3. Statute of frauds\u2014when contract within. A contract of employment not to be fully performed within a year is within the Statute of Frauds.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry C. Beitler, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Uourt at the October term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1912.\nWilliam H. Chadwick, plaintiff in error, pro se; Charles S. Knudson of counsel.\nWest & Eckhart, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0569-01", "first_page_order": 587, "last_page_order": 588 }