{ "id": 2755589, "name": "C. H. Blakeslee for use of Charles Turgrimson, Defendant in Error, v. Make-Man Tablet Company, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Blakeslee v. Make-Man Tablet Co.", "decision_date": "1912-12-11", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,810", "first_page": "515", "last_page": "517", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "175 Ill. App. 515" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "170 Ill. App. 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2777958 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/170/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 Ill. App. 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 878187 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/153/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ill. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3302200 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/209/0252-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 245, "char_count": 3805, "ocr_confidence": 0.522, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4975956836136062e-07, "percentile": 0.6646659708732053 }, "sha256": "9c7a56ba87c31745603c7e0a738a02279cba6f52a5fc5895b9dfb26fa3570a70", "simhash": "1:db47315c8a8eb6dd", "word_count": 644 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:29.550855+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "C. H. Blakeslee for use of Charles Turgrimson, Defendant in Error, v. Make-Man Tablet Company, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe defendant in error, for the use of Charles Turgrimson, brought suit in the Municipal Court against plaintiff in error to recover an amount claimed to be due from plaintiff in error to defendant in error for wages, and upon a trial \"by the court without a jury there was a finding and judgment against plaintiff in error for $121.50, to reverse which judgment this writ of error is prosecuted.\nThe claim is \"based solely upon a written assignment to said Turgrimson of wages earned and to he earned by defendant in error, together with an instrument designated \u201cPowers of Attorney and Agreements.\u201d These instruments were in fact executed and delivered by defendant in error on August 30, 1905, but the date of execution of the assignment was then left blank, as wasoalso the name of the person, firm or corporation tu be designated as the employer of defendant in error. The instrument constituting the assignment, powers of attorney and- agreements are too voluminous to be transcribed in this opinion. It is sufficient to say of them that they are \u201cfearfully and wonderfully\u201d devised. Nothing less than their exact reproduction can convey an adequate conception of the thraldom they seek to impose upon a hapless victim.\nDefendant in error was not in the employ of plaintiff in error when said instruments were executed and delivered, and did not enter its employ until June, 1909, nearly four years thereafter, and continued in such employment under a commission contract until May, 1910.\nAssuming to act under and by virtue of said powers of attorney, Turgrimson, on January 5, 1910, inserted in the instrument of assignment the name of plaintiff in error as the employer of defendant in error, and the date of its execution as the \u201c5th day of January, A. D. 1910.\u201d On the same day Turgrimson notified plaintiff in error that he held an assignment of the wages of defendant in error and requested plaintiff in error to protect him in the matter.\nThere is one sufficient bar to a recovery in this case.\nAn assignment of wages, if enforceable at all, is only enforceable when made with reference to a then existing contract of employment, but is not operative or valid when made with reference to a new or different contract of employment not then in existence. Mallin v. Wenham, 209 Ill. 252; National Biscuit Co. v. Consolidated Agencies Co., 153 Ill. App. 214; Stromberg, Allen & Co. v. Hill, 170 Ill. App. 323.\nThe assignment here involved was executed and delivered on August 30,1905, and was clearly inoperative to assign wages accruing under a contract of employment not then in existence, and which had no existence until June, 1909. What defendant in error could not do directly, Turgrimson could not do for him or in his name indirectly by virtue of the instrument executed August 30, 1905, purporting to be a power of attorney.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Baume" } ], "attorneys": [ "Morse Ives, for plaintiff in error.", "Charles R. Napier and Charles S. McIlvaine, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "C. H. Blakeslee for use of Charles Turgrimson, Defendant in Error, v. Make-Man Tablet Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,810.\n1. Assignment of wages\u2014when invalid. An assignment of wages is not operative or valid when made with reference to a new or different contract of employment not then in existence.\n2. Assignment of wages-\u2014not made valid by power of attorney. .A power of attorney with an assignment of wages, made previous to the existence of a contract of employment, cannot give the authority to make such an assignment valid.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John D. Turnbaugh, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed December 11, 1912.\nMorse Ives, for plaintiff in error.\nCharles R. Napier and Charles S. McIlvaine, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0515-01", "first_page_order": 533, "last_page_order": 535 }