{
  "id": 5366406,
  "name": "Joseph Ungar, Defendant in Error, v. E. F. Snydacker, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ungar v. Snydacker",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-23",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,104",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "91",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 91"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 140,
    "char_count": 1590,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "sha256": "ecd258c459812b26434ee15588730c60504a5be7b3fc104d381c398c7f4a5911",
    "simhash": "1:47f6e894308c20fc",
    "word_count": 262
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Ungar, Defendant in Error, v. E. F. Snydacker, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Louis Brandes, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Ungar, Defendant in Error, v. E. F. Snydacker, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,104.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Caverly, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 23, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Joseph Ungar against E. F. Snydacker to recover a balance claimed to be dne to plaintiff from defendant for work in making alterations on defendant\u2019s house. The plaintiff\u2019s claim was for labor performed for twenty and one-half days at four dollars per day, and for certain materials purchased for defendant at his request. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for eighty-two dollars, defendant brings error.\nMayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for plaintiff in error.\nLouis Brandes, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nMaster and servant, \u00a7 84 \u2014when judgment for wages sustained by the evidence. In an action for a balance alleged to be due for work and certain materials furnished by plaintiff, in making alterations for defendant\u2019s house, the defense being that there was a verbal agreement that plaintiff was to furnish all materials and that seven hundred and fifty dollars was to he the maximum sum to be paid by defendant for the necessary labor and materials, held that a verdict for plaintiff on conflicting evidence was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number, ..."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 137,
  "last_page_order": 137
}