{
  "id": 5084566,
  "name": "Otto Schanzenbach v. George Brough",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schanzenbach v. Brough",
  "decision_date": "1895-05-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "526",
  "last_page": "528",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 526"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5275053
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/54/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2627266
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/68/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ill. App. 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5130454
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/49/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5112215
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/51/0305-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 5126,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4709557109767819e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6592807148215977
    },
    "sha256": "0da32a8a2879bc83706646a0492b0b3b8d14dc8b4e0f577a1a8dc5af25d180b0",
    "simhash": "1:b9ebecb42c0612df",
    "word_count": 896
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Otto Schanzenbach v. George Brough."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee sued the appellant for wages earned, as the appellee testified, under an employment never put in writing, for five years at $5 per day.\nThe appellant admitted the employment at $5 per day, but only by the day, not by the year, week or month. The appellant claims that he suffered by some irregularities on the cross-examination of the appellee, but the language of the bill of exceptions is simply at the end of each of several colloquies between court and counsel, \u201cexception by counsel for defendant.\u201d This is nearer to what is necessary than was the case in Arcade Co. v. Allen, 51 Ill. App. 305, but yet does not show what the appellant excepted to. The opinion of Scofield, J., in East St. L. R. R. v. Conley, 49 Ill. App. 310, is instructive, if attentively read.\nThe appellee worked for the appellant from March 10, 1890, to April 4, 1891, and as appellant testified, was paid $1,289. That would leave nearly $400 due to the appellee and he has recovered $609.64. But the appellee put in testimony that services of the character that he rendered were worth from $7 to $10 per day, and if he was employed for a long term and discharged without cause, he is not limited to the price fixed by his contract, void under the statute of frauds and broken by the appellant, but may recover what his services were really worth. Wm. Butcher Steel Works v. Atkins, 68 Ill. 421.\nWhether there was cause for the discharge of the appellee was a question for the jury upon so little evidence of any cause, that the abstract shows no instruction upon that subject.\nThe appellant claims that he should have been allowed as payment the price of some stock bought by him for the appellee, but the abstract does not show that any was bought.\nThe appellant testified, \u201c I paid for that valve stock,\u201d with no more said about any actual purchase or sum paid. If it was bought the appellant no doubt kept it.\nThe appellee had once filed a bill claiming a partnership with the appellant. The abstract shows that the appellant asked and excepted to the refusal of the following instructions :\n\u201c The jury is further instructed that they may take into consideration any declaration or omission, whether verbal or in writing, and proven to have been made by the plaintiff in regard to his business relationship with the defendant for the purpose of determining the credibility and veracity of the plaintiff.\u201d\n\u201c The court instructs the jury that if they find from the evidence that the plaintiff has on another occasion willfully stated or sworn that he was the partner of the defendant, during and for the time for which he now seeks to recover wages as a servant, then they are at liberty to disregard his testimony in this trial as unworthy of belief.\u201d\n\u201c The court further instructs the jury that the plaintiff, in order to recover, must prove his case by a preponderance of evidence. And in case they, the jury, should find the evidence in this case so nearly balanced as to make it impossible to tell where the preponderance of the evidence lies, then, and in such case, they should find the issues in favor of the defendant.\u201d\nAs to the first, \u201c omission \u201d probably means \u201c admission,\u201d but don\u2019t so read, and if it had, and had been read to the jury, it is impossible to believe that it would have affected the result.'\nThe second omits the qualification as to corroboration always necessary. Huddle v. Martin, 54 Ill. 258.\nThe third is wholly wrong. That the appellee worked for the appellant was undisputed. The burden of proving payment was upon the latter. Ranke v. Cobiskey, No. 5374 last term. On the whole case the judgment must be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "0. A. Fitch, attorney for appellant.",
      "Thompson & Curtis, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Otto Schanzenbach v. George Brough.\n1. Practice\u2014Taking Exceptions.\u2014Exceptions taken to the action of the trial court in admitting or rejecting evidence, must be specific and show clearly what was excepted to.\n2. Services\u2014Discharge Without Reasonable Cause\u2014Measure of Recovery.\u2014Where a person is employed at a stated price for a longer term than is allowed by the statute of frauds, and is discharged without cause before the expiration of the period of employment, he is not limited in his recovery to the price fixed by the contract, but may recover what his services are really worth.\n3. Instructions\u2014Con trar 'y Statements out of Court.\u2014An instruction stating that if the jury \u201c find from the evidence that the plaintiff has, on another occasion, willfully stated or sworn that he was the partner of the defendant during and for the time for which he now seeks to recover wages as a servant, then they are at liberty to disregard his testimony in this trial as unworthy of belief,\u201d is erroneous, as it omits the qualifications as to corroboration.\n4. Payment\u2014Burden of Proof.\u2014The burden of proving a payment is upon the party making it.\nAssumpsit for work, labor and services. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding. Heard at this court at the March term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 16, 1895.\n0. A. Fitch, attorney for appellant.\nThompson & Curtis, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0526-01",
  "first_page_order": 522,
  "last_page_order": 524
}