{
  "id": 5413517,
  "name": "Eugene A. Pfeiffer, Defendant in Error, v. Hudson Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pfeiffer v. Hudson Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,603",
  "first_page": "364",
  "last_page": "365",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 364"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2167,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4265276719536815e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27731597479235276
    },
    "sha256": "672a47b2f836b4892467d6564c04c895737798ebe9bd1b9f719467f6672358ba",
    "simhash": "1:0d3ddeb3b88fa1b8",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Eugene A. Pfeiffer, Defendant in Error, v. Hudson Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Costs, \u00a7 67 \u2014when statutory damages for prosecuting appeal for delay will he assessed. Statutory damages should be assessed where the grounds presented for reversal are so clearly without merit as to force the conclusion that they were brought for the purpose of delay.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lannen & Hickey, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Lee J. Prank and Mary Lee Colbert, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Eugene A. Pfeiffer, Defendant in Error, v. Hudson Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,603.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 84 \u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that no deduction from salary of servant should he made for absences. In an action by an employee against his employer, a corporation, to recover wages, where it appeared that plaintiff was in defendant\u2019s employ for seven or eight years and had been paid up to the time of leaving the employment without any question being raised as to certain absences from work, which were known to the employer and were in part with consent of the employer\u2019s president, and more than a year after his last absence the employer rendered him a statement of account which included the periods of absence, but without any deduction from his wages because thereof, and no objection on account of such absences was raised until after he had left the employment, evidence held sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury in favor of the plaintiff that no deductions from his salary for his periods of absence should be made.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago^ the Hon. John R. Newcomer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 7, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Engene A. Pfeiffer, plaintiff, against the Hudson Manufacturing Company, defendant, to recover wages. Prom a judgment for plaintiff for $601.03, defendant brings error.\nLannen & Hickey, for plaintiff in error.\nLee J. Prank and Mary Lee Colbert, for defendant in error.\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": "0364-01",
  "first_page_order": 388,
  "last_page_order": 389
}