{
  "id": 5376471,
  "name": "Arthur Freund, Defendant in Error, v. Max Goldenberg, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Freund v. Goldenberg",
  "decision_date": "1916-01-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,768",
  "first_page": "596",
  "last_page": "597",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 596"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 2729,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "sha256": "75b0a36299cbf4285694ca76634defb048dbe4d2391b883efa3ca5d0991893df",
    "simhash": "1:874370a9845e3cdd",
    "word_count": 449
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arthur Freund, Defendant in Error, v. Max Goldenberg, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Eben F. Runyan, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for defendant in error; Sigmund W. David, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arthur Freund, Defendant in Error, v. Max Goldenberg, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,768.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 31, 1916.\nRehearing denied February 14, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Arthur Freund, plaintiff, against Max Goldenberg, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover on an oral contract of employment to extend from October 16, 1913, to January 15, 1914, at $45 per week. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $409.50, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nThe evidence tended to show that plaintiff was experienced in the ladies\u2019 ready-to-wear clothing business, and in October, 1913, was employed by a ladies\u2019 cloak and suit concern, and making $25 a week, with a prospect of continued employment. At this time defendant and one Bruns purchased a bankrupt stock of merchandise. Neither had ever been in the ladies\u2019 clothing business and they needed an experienced man to retail this stock. Defendant asked plaintiff to take charge of the sale of this merchandise, and plaintiff replied that it would not pay him to leave a steady position for a short time. An agreement was made that plaintiff should work for defendant from October 16th until the following January 15th at $45 a week. Plaintiff entered upon his duties and did the things which are usually done under such circumstances to attract customers, displaying skill and experience. The stock was smoked and burned and of old style, and did not sell at profitable prices. After a week and five days, defendant discharged plaintiff.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nMaster and servant, \u00a7 84*\u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain finding as to wrongful discharge of servant. In an action to recover on an oral contract of employment, where there was evidence that the cause of plaintiff\u2019s discharge was the failure of defendant to do a profitable business, but where defendant attempted to justify the discharge on the ground that plaintiff made misrepresentations as to his ability, salary and length of service with his former employer, and that he was incompetent and did not perform his work in a good and workmanlike manner, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that plaintiff was wrongfully discharged.\nPlaintiff sought to obtain other employment, and from October 28th until March 27th was able to secure a position for only three and a half weeks at $12 per week.\nEben F. Runyan, for plaintiff in error.\nMoses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for defendant in error; Sigmund W. David, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0596-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 619
}