{ "id": 856582, "name": "World's Columbian Exposition v. James W. Thompson", "name_abbreviation": "World's Columbian Exposition v. Thompson", "decision_date": "1895-03-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "606", "last_page": "608", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "57 Ill. App. 606" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "17 Ill. App. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 867408 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "200" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/17/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5053947 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/43/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ill. App. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5077918 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/45/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill. App. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 861699 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/31/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Ill. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2589234 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/16/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5113315 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/51/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2626676 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/68/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ill. 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2602226 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/49/0143-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 367, "char_count": 5676, "ocr_confidence": 0.507, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2775607096219341e-07, "percentile": 0.6162083194811744 }, "sha256": "984ada0ec32db22e972b5e1e9c44bc89432adc7acda5d91efaff28bad3ca9bab", "simhash": "1:87779263184d9549", "word_count": 976 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:41.767696+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "World\u2019s Columbian Exposition v. James W. Thompson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion or the Court.\nThis case is to recover damages sustained by the appellee by reason of his discharge from the service of the appellant as a gatekeeper before his term was ended.\nIn substance, the employment of the appellee by the appellant is proved, as was the employment of \u00a1Richards, as shown in World\u2019s Columbian Exposition v. Richards. (See preceding case.) But it further appears that here the appellee signed a \u201c statement,\u201d one paragraph of which was:\n\u201c It is agreed that the sum of $5 per month shall be withheld from my salary as a guarantee for the safe keeping, proper care and return to the company of the uniform received by me; and that in case of my services terminating before the expiration of the Exposition period, such an appraised amount as shall be necessary to secure the company against loss or damage by wear and tear shall be deducted from any moneys that shall finally be due me.\u201d\nIt is said in the brief of the appellee, that \u201c The provision for the deduction of five dollars from each month\u2019s salary, for wear and tear of the uniform, was undoubtedly made in view of the possible discharge of the employe after a short term of service. \u00a1No sensible person contracting with a corporation about to inaugurate such an Exposition, could have inferred anything else. Suggestions on this point are uncalled for, however, in the face of such plain language as this; \u201d so no further suggestions are made, and we find no inconsistency between an engagement for a period fixed, and a provision for the contingency of the services terminating before the period. We therefore refer to Richards\u2019 case without repeating.\nThe court added to the verdict of the jury $10 for attorney\u2019s fees, and the appellee endeavors to justify that under \u201c An act providing for attorney\u2019s fees when mechanic, artisau, miner, laborer or servant sues for wages.\u201d Approved June 1, 1889.\nThere are two reasons why the addition of fees is wrong. First, the appellee does not sue for \u201c wages earned and due,\u201d but for damages for being discharged. The suit was begun before a justice so that there are no written pleadings; and the action is whatever the evidence fits.\nPowell v. Feely, 49 Ill. 143, and Allen v. Nichols, 68 Ill. 250, are two of many similar cases. Columbian Co. v. Langley, 51 Ill. App. 100.\nHow an action for wages earned, that is, a common count for work and labor, is not sufficient in a case like this; the declaration must be special because the wages have not been earned. 1 Ch. Pl. 360, 16th Am. Ed. It is a general rule that an averment of performance is not met by proof of an excuse of non-performance. Higgins v. Lee, 16 Ill. 495.\nSecond, the \u201c decision of the * * * jury \u201d is a general verdict for the appellee; no special finding of certain facts, as the statute contemplates. Whether a finding that the appellee was a \u201claborer\u201d or a \u201cservant\u201d would have been justified, we do not inquire; we notice that \u201c employe \u201d is not in the title of the act. Taylor v. Kirby, 31 Ill. App. 658.\nSo much of the judgment as awards $10 for attorney\u2019s fees is reversed, and the residue is affirmed, the costs here to be paid by the appellee.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant\u2019s Brief, Walker & Eddy, Attorneys.", "F. E. Loras, attorney for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "World\u2019s Columbian Exposition v. James W. Thompson.\n1. Contracts\u2014Services\u2014Discharge Before Expiration of Term.\u2014A person entering the employment of the World\u2019s Columbian Exposition as a ticket seller, signed a contract providing that the sum of $5 per month should be withheld from his salary as a guarantee for the safe' keeping, proper care and return to the company of a uniform; and that in case of his services terminating before the expiration of the Exposition period, such an appraised amount as should be necessary to secure the company against loss or damage by wear and tear should be deducted from any moneys that might finally be due him. D, ivas held that the contract did not authorize the Exposition to discharge such person without cause before the expiration of the Exposition period.\n2. Attorney\u2019s Fees\u2014Servant Suing for Wages.\u2014The act providing for attorney\u2019s fees when a mechanic, artisan, miner, laborer, servant, or employe brings suit for wages owing according to the terms of an employment (R. S., Ch. 13, Par. 13) does not apply where such mechanic, etc., sues for damages for being discharged.\n3. Same\u2014Special Findings.\u2014Under the act providing for attorney\u2019s fees, when a mechanic, artisan,' miner, laborer or servant sues for wages (approved June 1, 1889, R. S., Ch. 13 Par. 13), the jury must find specially that the amount sued for is due and owing, and is for the wages of such mechanic, artisan, miner, laborer, servant or employe.\n4. Pleading\u2014Suing for a Wrongful Discharge.\u2014A servant suing for a wrongful discharge must declare specially; the common counts will not suffice.\n5. Variance\u2014Allegations and Proofs.\u2014Excuse for non-performance is not admissible under an averment of performance.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit. Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County, on appeal from a justice of the peace; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. ' Submitted at the October term, 1894.\nReversed in part and affirmed in part.\nOpinion filed March 5, 1895.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, Walker & Eddy, Attorneys.\nTo include attorney\u2019s fees in the judgment was improper, unless' the statutory provisions were strictly complied with. Chicago, W. & V. C. Co. v. Balmer, 45 Ill. App. 59; Roland v. Records, 43 Ill. App. 198.\nThe authorities do not extend the benefit of this statute to a secretary, a timekeeper, a traveling salesman, a bookkeeper, or, as we believe, to a gatekeeper. See Epps v. Epps, 17 Ill. App. 196, 200.\nF. E. Loras, attorney for appellee." }, "file_name": "0606-01", "first_page_order": 602, "last_page_order": 604 }