{
  "id": 2874810,
  "name": "Lillian MacNeel, Appellee, v. N. J. Eisendrath, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "MacNeel v. Eisendrath",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,866",
  "first_page": "20",
  "last_page": "21",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 20"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 1909,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "sha256": "0583dd3b7eeca98ac7d4809e8633b765dd6e367d005c27b73ff97573d8df6ebf",
    "simhash": "1:86791715d49d319a",
    "word_count": 322
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lillian MacNeel, Appellee, v. N. J. Eisendrath, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David S. Eisendrath, for appellant.",
      "Morse Ives, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lillian MacNeel, Appellee, v. N. J. Eisendrath, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,866.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from County Court of Cook county; the Hon. J. J. Barnes, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Lillian MacNeel against N. J. Eisendrath on an oral contract for employment for one year at twenty-five dollars per week, to recover for a portion of the year plaintiff was not given employment. The defense was that the contract was for service in a particular building afterwards destroyed by a flood, that the contract contemplated its continued existence, e and that the destruction of the building terminated the contract and excused further performance. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 601 \u2014when motion for new trial necessary. The sufficiency of evidence to sustain a judgment will not be inquired into where the record does not show a motion for a new trial.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 768 \u2014what record must show. The question of error in the giving of an instruction will not be reviewed on appeal where the record does not show at whose instance any of the instructions were given.\n3. Master and servant, \u00a7 82 \u2014what evidence is inadmissible in suit for wages. In a suit on a contract of employment claimed to have been terminated by the destruction of the building where the plaintiff was employed, there was no error in rejecting proof of the defendant\u2019s contract for the building in question, as the only effect of the proof would have been to corroborate an undisputed \"question of fact.\nDavid S. Eisendrath, for appellant.\nMorse Ives, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0020-01",
  "first_page_order": 46,
  "last_page_order": 47
}