{
  "id": 2929746,
  "name": "Joseph Rinehart, Appellee, v. William J. Shedd, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rinehart v. Shedd",
  "decision_date": "1917-07-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,032",
  "first_page": "139",
  "last_page": "140",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 139"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1849,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3341757668126914e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27267999022336825
    },
    "sha256": "04b500ff5afc48842ad468978b6716d4e2db17ae0042fa7ad091c5d8e5268f64",
    "simhash": "1:1a75fa27188d36b8",
    "word_count": 314
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Rinehart, Appellee, v. William J. Shedd, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1414 \u2014 when decision of trial court on-controverted questions of fact mil not he disturbed. The decision of the trial court on controverted questions of fact, in view of the fact that the trial judge, who has had an opportunity to see and hear the witnesses who have testified in the case, is better able to determine such questions, will not be disturbed on appeal.\n2. Master and servant, \u00a7 84* \u2014 when evidence sufficient to show that contract was to go into effect immediately. In an action by a farm superintendent to recover for services under an oral contract, where the evidence was conflicting, evidence held sufficient to show that the contract was to go into effect immediately upon the making thereof.\n3. Frauds, Statute of, \u00a7 89* \u2014 when not defense in action on oral contract of employment. Where an oral contract of employment has been fully performed and. nothing remains to be done except the payment of money by the employer, the Statute of Frauds cannot be interposed as a defense to an action on the contract",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John 0. Traihor, for appellant.",
      "A. B. Dumtmra and Abel L. At,leu, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Rinehart, Appellee, v. William J. Shedd, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,032.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. H. Sterling Pomeroy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Joseph Rinehart, plaintiff, against William J. Shedd, defendant, to recover the sum of $180 alleged to be due under a contract of employment as farm superintendent. From a judgment for plaintiff for $180, defendant appeals.\nJohn 0. Traihor, for appellant.\nA. B. Dumtmra and Abel L. At,leu, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0139-01",
  "first_page_order": 165,
  "last_page_order": 166
}