{
  "id": 5003111,
  "name": "William H. Cary et al. v. Otto Norton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cary v. Norton",
  "decision_date": "1890-02-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "365",
  "last_page": "366",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ill. App. 365"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1768,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "sha256": "9e8b297f41958f22118e51b7ed9f555bbccfb0a5d3acb26e3739afafe5c2764d",
    "simhash": "1:f2477a5e960b2248",
    "word_count": 301
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:12.584336+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William H. Cary et al. v. Otto Norton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellee brought this action against appellants to recover for a balance of salary for the year 1887, which was due for the time after, as he claimed he was wrongfully discharged from their employment. The defense was that the contract of employment was not tobe performed within one year from the making thereof, and consequently he was entitled to wages only for the time he continued in service.\nWhether the contract was within the terms of the statute of frauds was made an issue of fact between the parties on the trial, and the jury found under correct instructions by the court, in favor of appellee, on that as well as the other issues in the case. We have examined all the points made by appellants\u2019 counsel for reversal, and there is none which warrants interference with the judgment. The instruction, of the modification of which complaint is made, was not strictly correct as asked, and might have been refused. As given by the court the law is correctly stated.\nNeither was there error in the admission of evidence which is available on this record to appellant, nor .in rule as to the measure of damages, or appellee\u2019s duty to seek other employment.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Cratty Bros. & Ashcraft, for appellants.",
      "Mr. C\u00e1elos P. Sawyeb, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William H. Cary et al. v. Otto Norton.\nMaster and Servant\u2014Contract of Service\u2014Statute of Frauds\u2014Wages\u2014 Wrongful Discharge.\nIn an action brought to recover a balance alleged to be due under a contract of service, tins court declines, in view of the evidence, to interfere with the verdict for the plaintiff.\n[Opinion filed February 12, 1890.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Cratty Bros. & Ashcraft, for appellants.\nMr. C\u00e1elos P. Sawyeb, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0365-01",
  "first_page_order": 361,
  "last_page_order": 362
}
