{
  "id": 2761368,
  "name": "John E. Baumrucker, Defendant in Error, v. The Fred D. Jones Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baumrucker v. Fred D. Jones Co.",
  "decision_date": "1912-10-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,311",
  "first_page": "120",
  "last_page": "121",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 Ill. App. 120"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 2081,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.553,
    "sha256": "e963c457a196f231c15ba0609edfb5a099818ee7af8c9e34777d73c69842f756",
    "simhash": "1:fa42954985eb1e56",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:56:54.106977+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John E. Baumrucker, Defendant in Error, v. The Fred D. Jones Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this case a recovery was had for the sum of $510.09, being for salary and commissions claimed to be due the plaintiff from defendant upon a contract of hiring.\nAn affidavit of merits was filed,' made by one of the attorneys for the defendant, which stated that the deponent verily believed that the defendant had a meritorious defense to the cause of action. The affidavit then proceeds to set forth the fact that plaintiff was discharged from his employment because of alleged misconduct, particularly in that he violated his contract, which provided for exclusive employment by the defendant, by doing business for Strelitz Brothers, who were competitors of the defendant. Becoupment for an indefinite amount was claimed in the affidavit, and a judgment was asked in favor of defendant. This affidavit was \u201cstricken out\u201d and judgment was rendered by the court, as upon default.\nFor the reasons set forth in an opinion filed this day in a similar case against the same defendant (William Whitney v. The Fred D. Jones Co., general number 17,208), ante, p. 116, we think the affidavit of merits was improperly \u201cstricken out.\u201d The judgment will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julius N. Heldman and Simon LaGrou, for plaintiff in error.",
      "McEwen, Weissenbach, Shrimski & Meloan, for defendant in error; Jerome J. Cermak, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John E. Baumrucker, Defendant in Error, v. The Fred D. Jones Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,311.\nMunicipal court\u2014affidavit of merits. Where an employee sues In the municipal court for money due under contract of hiring, an affidavit of merits which sets forth that defendant has a meritorious defense and that plaintiff was discharged because he violated the contract by doing business for a competitor, is improperly \u201cstricken out.\u201d\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemhill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 22, 1912.\nJulius N. Heldman and Simon LaGrou, for plaintiff in error.\nMcEwen, Weissenbach, Shrimski & Meloan, for defendant in error; Jerome J. Cermak, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0120-01",
  "first_page_order": 138,
  "last_page_order": 139
}