{
  "id": 5113946,
  "name": "Standard Fashion Co. v. Blake",
  "name_abbreviation": "Standard Fashion Co. v. Blake",
  "decision_date": "1894-02-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "233",
  "last_page": "234",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 233"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2422814
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/30/0552-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 341",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5070315
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/44/0341-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. App. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        867408
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/17/0196-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 1999,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.458523723746264e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6566541138112685
    },
    "sha256": "6d52333ae974f9553ac4d1de040ef57af65430eb4cc99050566c7fe7ff825234",
    "simhash": "1:4061bbf1d8819068",
    "word_count": 355
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Standard Fashion Co. v. Blake."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee was a traveling salesman in the service of the appellant, and this action is for a balance that he claims to be due him.\nThe jury gave him a verdict of $65.51, and the court gave him a judgment for the dollars, without the cents, and added to the dollars fifteen other dollars.\nThis addition the appellee tries to justify under the act providing for attorney\u2019s fees when mechanic, artisan, miner, laborer or servant sues for wages, approved June 1, 1889,' printed at the end of chapter 13 of statute by Hurd.\nThe appellant seems not to be aware (and if the appellee is he won\u2019t tell) that as long ago as the 25th day of November, 1885, this court decided that a traveling salesman was not a laborer or servant within the meaning of the then statute, and repeated the same construction on the 4th day of Hay, 1892, under the present statute. Epps v. Epps, 17 Ill. App. 196; Epstein v. Webb, 44 Ill. App. 341.\nThat he is not a mechanic, artisan or miner, needs no illus\" tration.\nWithout commenting on the evidence, we think that if the appellee within two days after this opinion is filed will remit all in excess of $40 we will affirm for that sum; otherwise reverse and remand. In either case the costs fall on the appellee. K. & S. R. R. Co. v. Horan, 30 Ill. App. 552.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Booth & Booth, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Smith, Helmer & Moulton, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Standard Fashion Co. v. Blake.\n1. Laborer and Servant\u2014Who is Not.\u2014A traveling salesman is not a laborer or servant within the meaning of the statute approved June 1) 1889, providing for attorney\u2019s fees when a mechanic, artisan, miner, laborer or servant sues for wages.\nMemorandum.\u2014 Assumpsit for work, labor, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893.\nEeversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 8, 1894.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nBooth & Booth, attorneys for appellant.\nSmith, Helmer & Moulton, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0233-01",
  "first_page_order": 229,
  "last_page_order": 230
}