{
  "id": 5416260,
  "name": "Harriette L. Cowin, Defendant in Error, v. Arctic Fur Shop, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cowin v. Arctic Fur Shop",
  "decision_date": "1916-11-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,125",
  "first_page": "56",
  "last_page": "57",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 56"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 129,
    "char_count": 1481,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "sha256": "da3346477e1c80f4dd925701f2ba5f7ee0cc189274dc044a20477af7a3daa1ce",
    "simhash": "1:d55f3d97908b109c",
    "word_count": 239
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harriette L. Cowin, Defendant in Error, v. Arctic Fur Shop, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel J. Richman, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Henry Roth, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harriette L. Cowin, Defendant in Error, v. Arctic Fur Shop, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,125.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habby M. Fisher, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 15, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Harriette L. Cowin, plaintiff, against the Arctic Fur Shop, a corporation, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover for breach of a contract of employment. To reverse a- judgment for plaintiff for $200, defendant prosecutes a writ of error. Defendant contracted to employ plaintiff as a milliner for six months, but discharged her before the expiration of such period, claiming that she refused to obey orders and was guilty of improper conduct towards defendant\u2019s customers.\nSamuel J. Richman, for plaintiff in error.\nHenry Roth, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nMaster and servant, \u00a7 84 \u2014when evidence sustains judgment for. wages. In an action to recover for breach of a contract whereby defendant agreed to employ plaintiff as a milliner for a named period, but discharged her prior to the expiration of such period, where defendant claimed that the discharge was justified, evidence held to sustain a judgment for plaintiff.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0056-01",
  "first_page_order": 82,
  "last_page_order": 83
}