{
  "id": 4904357,
  "name": "Chicago Dry Dock Co. v. Rice",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Dry Dock Co. v. Rice",
  "decision_date": "1886-06-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 66-2336",
  "first_page": "631",
  "last_page": "631",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 Ill. App. 631"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 110,
    "char_count": 997,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "sha256": "3ab4393e85c5555034497f2210d4e5b8722551dc503fe238d779af5489404529",
    "simhash": "1:126a01c21a93a0b0",
    "word_count": 173
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:07.529816+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago Dry Dock Co. v. Rice."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion\nPer Curiam.\nJudge below, Joseph E. Gary.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Schuyler & Kremer; for appellee, Mr. John C. Richberg."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FIRST district.\nNo. 66 \u2014 2336.\nChicago Dry Dock Co. v. Rice.\nOpinion filed June 9, 1886.\nThis was assumpsit brought by Albert H. Bice against the Chicago Dry Dock Company, to recover a balance of \u00a7300 claimed by the plaintiff to be due him for services as foreman of the defendant\u2019s dry dock. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant for the term of one year, under a special contract, and that he served the defendant during the full period of his employment. The only substantial controversy is as to the amount of wages or salary fixed by the contract. The judge below, who tried the case, by agreement, without a jury, and who saw and heard the witziesses, reached the conclusion that the evidence as to the terms of the contract preponderated in favor of the plaintiff, and the court sees no ground for disturbing his finding.\nAttorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Schuyler & Kremer; for appellee, Mr. John C. Richberg."
  },
  "file_name": "0631-01",
  "first_page_order": 629,
  "last_page_order": 629
}