{
  "id": 2968972,
  "name": "Thomas Hart, Appellee, v. R. E. Bradbury, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hart v. Bradbury",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "82",
  "last_page": "83",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 82"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 202,
    "char_count": 3216,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3560018364005006
    },
    "sha256": "655e8056ce12be2b9f1ae951d719746faededa22e5e9bdae3506ea54a4f91823",
    "simhash": "1:0cf706b79c1b02f4",
    "word_count": 545
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas Hart, Appellee, v. R. E. Bradbury, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Master and servant, \u00a7 65 \u2014when duty of employer to give servant notice of change in compensation. It is the duty of the employer to give the servant notice of a change in compensation after the expiration of a contract for a stipulated term and salary, so that the employee may leave if not satisfied.\n4. Master and servant, \u00a7 85*\u2014when instruction on right to recover compensation properly refused. In an action by an employee to recover wages accruing after the expiration of a contract for a stated period and salary, a requested instruction stating that if the jury believed from the evidence that plaintiff was hired for the working season of a certain year at a stipulated salary and that the working season was eight months long and no agreement was made thereafter for the succeeding years, then the jury should only allow plaintiff at the agreed rate for each working season thereafter, held erroneous, especially as it ignored the fact that plaintiff continued to work for defendant the entire year.\n5. Master and servant, \u00a7 82*\u2014when evidence as to value of services inadmissible. In an action by an employee to recover wages accruing after the expiration of a contract for a stated period and salary, where no change was made in the salary after the expiration of the term, evidence as to the value of the services rendered is inadmissible.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Schneider & Schneider, for appellant.",
      "Cloud & Thompson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas Hart, Appellee, v. R. E. Bradbury, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 81 \u2014when presumed that parties assented to continuance of services under same terms as expiring contract. Where a contract is entered into by which one person agrees to perform services for another for a definite time and at a stated salary and such services are continued after the term without objection by the employer and without any new agreement, the law raises a presumption that the parties have assented to a continuance of the services for another term of the same length and at the same salary.\n2. Master and servant, \u00a7 75*\u2014what is remedy of servant working after expiration of contract for recovery Of wages. Where a servant agrees to work under a contract for a stipulated time and a definite salary, and he continues to work after the expiration of such period and the salary is not changed, the recovery for wages accruing after the expiration of such period must be on an implied contract and for the compensation presumed to have been fixed by the parties and not on quantum meruit.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Ford county; the Hon. Thomas M. Harris, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 13, 1915.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Thomas Hart, plaintiff, against E. E. Bradbury, defendant, to recover for wages. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nSchneider & Schneider, for appellant.\nCloud & Thompson, for appellee.\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": "0082-01",
  "first_page_order": 124,
  "last_page_order": 125
}