{
  "id": 2860206,
  "name": "Oscar Trybon, Defendant in Error, v. August W. Miller, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Trybon v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1916-03-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,528",
  "first_page": "215",
  "last_page": "217",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 215"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 3966,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "sha256": "57aeefd26c67c153f426d8c7db757b351a5f1c4d850bde271ffb92c84d5ed173",
    "simhash": "1:d25dc6a7321e2c8e",
    "word_count": 660
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Oscar Trybon, Defendant in Error, v. August W. Miller, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hebel & Haft, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Oscar Trybon, Defendant in Error, v. August W. Miller, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,528.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Oscar M. Torrison, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed on remittitur.\nOpinion filed March 9, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Oscar Trybon, plaintiff, against August W. Miller, defendant, to recover for wages, overtime, and disbursements for car fare and telephone expenses. From a judgment for plaintiff for $359.50, defendant brings error.\nDefendant hired plaintiff to work from April 4, 1913, to November 23, 1913, to solicit consents for granite paving.\nIn his amended statement of claim plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to receive as wages $80 for the month of April, $85 for each of the months of May, June, July, August, September and October and $65.40 for the month of November, or a total of $655.40; that he received from defendant from time to time during the months of April to September, inclusive, as wages, the total sum of $315, and that he also received from defendant on January 12, 1914, the sum of $50, leaving a balance due him of $290.40 for wages as distinguished from moneys due him for overtime and disbursements. The defendant, in his second amended affidavit of merits, admitted that plaintiff had earned as wages said total sum of $655.40, but claimed that from time to time up to and including January 12, 1914, he had paid plaintiff the total sum of $531, leaving only a balance due plaintiff for wages of $124.40.\nOn the question as to the allowance of plaintiff\u2019s claim for $69.10 for disbursements during the period of his employment for car fare and telephone expenses, defendant\u2019s evidence was to the effect that he at no time made any agreement with plaintiff to reimburse him for such expenses. While plaintiff testified that during the month of April, 1913, defendant gave him $2 for car fare and telephone expense, he also testified that he had no further conversation with defendant relative to such expenses and that at no time during his employment did he render any bill to defendant for such expenses. In testifying plaintiff read from his account or memorandum book containing items of wages, overtime and expenses.\nHebel & Haft, for plaintiff in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 84 -\u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain verdict. Finding by trial court that defendant owed plaintiff $290.40 for wages, the evidence with regard thereto being conflicting, held not to be against the weight of the evidence.\n2. Master and servant, \u00a7 84*\u2014when evidence insufficient to sustain finding that master promised to allow servant expenses. Where plaintiff in action for wages claimed allowance of car fare and telephone expenses during his employment by defendant, and plaintiff testified that on one occasion defendant gave him $2 for such expenses but that he had had no further conversation with defendant relative to such disbursement and that during his employment, a period exceeding seven months, he never rendered any bill to defendant for such expenses and there was no express promise by defendant apparent in the record, to reimburse plaintiff therefor, or sufficient evidence from which such promise may be implied, held such expenses should not be allowed plaintiff.\n3. Master and servant, \u00a7 82*\u2014when use of memorandum 6y witness not prejudicial error. In an action by a servant against his master for wages alleged to be due, held that the act of the court in allowing plaintiff to read from an account or memorandum book which contained items of wages received by him from time to time was not prejudicial error in the light of plaintiff\u2019s evidence.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Veis. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0215-01",
  "first_page_order": 239,
  "last_page_order": 241
}