{
  "id": 5375795,
  "name": "George Hoey, Defendant in Error, v. Alcazar Amusement Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hoey v. Alcazar Amusement Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-01-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,055",
  "first_page": "411",
  "last_page": "413",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 411"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 4709,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3393551129814904
    },
    "sha256": "f0446862ac7cc81d586269333af3fbd8f3bc915acc67258db8072291717f5260",
    "simhash": "1:eb59c08210d4cc75",
    "word_count": 783
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George Hoey, Defendant in Error, v. Alcazar Amusement Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Contracts, \u00a7 377 \u2014when letter by third, person purporting to accept cancellation properly excluded. In an action by a theatrical performer against a theatrical company to recover under a written contract for a performance given, and damages for refusal to permit plaintiff to fulfil the contract, held that a letter from a booking agency which negotiated the contract to the defendant purporting to accept for plaintiff defendant\u2019s cancellation of the contract was properly excluded, there being no proof that it had any authority to so do, nor evidence justifying the cancellation.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank P. Leefingwell, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Adolph Marks, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George Hoey, Defendant in Error, v. Alcazar Amusement Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,055.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fishes, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 11, 1916.\nRehearing denied January 25, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by George Hoey, plaintiff, against Alcazar Amusement Company, defendant, to recover money under a written contract for a theatrical performance given, and damages for refusal of defendant to permit plaintiff to perform for the balance of the time stipulated in the contract. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nThe contract began with a recital that it was an agreement between said company and \u201cIn Old New York (Geo. Hoey, Mgr.),\u201d to be designated thereafter in the contract as manager and artist respectively. By its terms the manager engaged the artist \u201cin his specialty or act\u201d for a period of one week commencing July 6th, at the price of three hundred and fifty dollars.\nDefendant urged that it was not a contract between the parties because Hoey was not referred to as a party in the body thereof. The contract was signed by each of the parties and the evidence tended to show that the term \u201cIn Old New York (Geo. Hoey, Mgr.),\u201d was a name used by Hoey to designate his company of performers composed of himself and his employees, and that defendant knew it was dealing with Hoey personally and no one else.\nThe court refused to permit defendant to prove whether or not one Jacobs employed by the booking agency that negotiated the contract between Hoey and said company reported to the latter a conversation he had with Hoey.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Contracts, \u00a7 385 \u2014when evidence sufficient to establish contract. In an action by a theatrical performer against a theatrical company to recover money under a written contract for a performance given, and damages for refusal to permit plaintiff to perform for the balance of the. stipulated period, evidence held sufficient to establish a contract.\n2. Contracts, \u00a7 196 \u2014when printed words do not control. An amusement company cannot escape liability upon a written contract with a theatrical performer for one week\u2019s service because of the fact that the contract provides that a failure on the part of either party to perform \u201csuch week\u201d shall not be deemed a violation of its terms by either party, it appearing that the parties used a printed form designed to cover various situations, including those for a longer term than one week, and this clause referred to a situation where a contract was made for more than one week.\n3. Contracts, \u00a7 377 \u2014when evidence of conversation properly excluded. In an action by a theatrical performer against a theatrical company to recover money under a written contract for a performance given, and damages for refusal to permit plaintiff to fulfil the contract, held, that evidence to prove whether or not a certain person employed by the booking agency which negotiated the contract reported to defendant a conversation he had with plaintiff was properly excluded, as such conversation did not tend to show an admission by plaintiff or that he had abandoned the contract.\nThe court also excluded a letter from said booking agency to the defendant purporting to accept for Hoey defendant\u2019s cancellation of the contract. There was no proof that it had any authority so to do, nor evidence justifying the cancellation.\nA clause in the contract that a failure on the part of either party to perform \u201csuch week\u201d should not be deemed a violation of its terms by either party. In framing the contract the parties used a printed form of the booking agency designed to cover various situations.\nFrank P. Leefingwell, for plaintiff in error.\nAdolph Marks, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0411-01",
  "first_page_order": 433,
  "last_page_order": 435
}