{
  "id": 2862841,
  "name": "Owen B. Vaughn, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vaughn v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1916-02-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,601",
  "first_page": "100",
  "last_page": "101",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 100"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 225,
    "char_count": 3390,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "sha256": "f8d59ec110522e07abc3a072053712d6937b3e212920f809b4f3b6d54dde7c8a",
    "simhash": "1:e7517d07349918bd",
    "word_count": 568
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Owen B. Vaughn, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William H. Sexton and John W. Beckwith, for plaintiff in error; Joseph F. Grossman and John E. Foster, of counsel.",
      "A. D. Gash, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Owen B. Vaughn, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,601.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henrey C. Beitler, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed February 16, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Owen B. Vaughn, plaintiff, against the City of Chicago, defendant, for twenty-seven days\u2019 wages as e\u00e1rpenter in the employ of the police department of the defendant city. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.\nUpon the trial it appeared that of the twenty-seven days\u2019 wages for which plaintiff recovered, ten days were in May, 1913, while he was absent, as he claimed, on a \u201cdouble header\u201d vacation of twenty-one days, and the remaining seventeen were embraced in a period in November, 1913, during which he was suspended from duty pending investigation of charges. It subsequently appeared from his own testimony that the charges were sustained and he was dismissed from the city\u2019s employ.\nFrom a city ordinance in force January 15, 1912, it appeared that skilled laborers who had been in the service at least a year were entitled to a vacation of eleven working days, and specifically provided that \u201cAll persons eligible for leave of absence with full pay, as hereinbefore provided, shall be entitled to such leave of absence during any fiscal year, and in no case shall these periods be cumulative.\u201d Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to and had been allowed a \u201cdouble vacation\u201d in May on account of his failure to take a vacation during the previous year. Plaintiff was allowed and received full compensation for eleven days\u2019 vacation in May, but at the trial no authority was shown in any officer to grant him the \u201cdouble header\u201d vacation claimed.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court op Chicago, \u00a7 26 \u2014when stenographic report sufficient. It is not necessary, under section 81 of the Practice Act (J. & A. K 8618), to recite or preserve the judgment entered in the stenographic report of the trial, and the absence of such recital will not be ground for the dismissal of the app\u00e9al.\n2. \u00b0 Municipal corporations, \u00a7 145*\u2014when employee not entitled to cumulative vacation. Under a city ordinance providing that skilled laborers in the service of the city at least a year are entitled to a vacation of eleven working days during any fiscal year and that these periods shall not be cumulative, an employee who does not take his vacation during the previous year is not entitled to a \u201cdouble\u201d vacation, as such a vacation is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.\n3. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 149*\u2014when employee not entitled to compensation. Where a city civil service employee was suspended from duty pending investigation of charge and was dismissed from the city\u2019s employ, he cannot recover wages for the period during which he was under suspension.\nNo statement or recitation of the judgment entered was incorporated in the stenographic report of the trial.\nWilliam H. Sexton and John W. Beckwith, for plaintiff in error; Joseph F. Grossman and John E. Foster, of counsel.\nA. D. Gash, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0100-01",
  "first_page_order": 124,
  "last_page_order": 125
}