{
  "id": 5174645,
  "name": "Thomas Knapp Printing and Binding Company v. J. C. Guthrie",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thomas Knapp Printing & Binding Co. v. Guthrie",
  "decision_date": "1896-06-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "523",
  "last_page": "524",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 523"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3783,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "sha256": "83353ff5c209e89c737d49666bd42df2c85a35c01d625d8163a66905d90ef8f4",
    "simhash": "1:07c922698c5383ec",
    "word_count": 651
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas Knapp Printing and Binding Company v. J. C. Guthrie."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellant employed the appellee to do some work which necessitated shutting down machinery, and therefore the appellant wanted' it done of nights and Sundays. The only contest in the case is whether ninety cents or a dollar and eighty cents an hour for the work is the proper charge.\nThe appellee says the bargain was\u2014and in this he is corroborated by his helper\u2014that the charge was to be \u201c ninety cents an hour double time.\u201d The president of the company who made the bargain, says it was ninety cents an hour.\nA witness for the appellant testified that he sent the appellee to the appellant, that during part of the time that the appellee was at work on this job of nights, he was also at work for the witness in the daytime, at work of the same character and somewhat harder, at forty-five cents an hour for the appellee and his helper. The appellee on cross-examination admitted that during a part of the time he was on this job, he was engaged during the day working for that witness, but when asked what rate of compensation he received for that day work, the court sustained an objection of the appellee to the question, and the appellant excepted. This was error. The jury for some fanciful reason may have discredited the witness, but they could not well have refused to believe the appellee against himself.\nThe real question before the jury was, assuming that the appellee testified truly that the words of the bargain were \u201c ninety cents an hour double time \u2019\u2019\u2014was the ninety cents an hour itself doubling the time, by doubling the pay for the time ? If the fact was that it was double pay, then the reasonable proper construction of the words was in favor of the appellant, and it should have been allowed to prove the fact by such testimony as the appellee could not have disputed.\nIt is unnecessary to consider the instructions, or the pertinency of the evidence in rebuttal.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nMr. Justice Shepard dissents.\nMr. Justice Waterman.\nAppellee claimed under an alleged special contract; this, as stated by him, is so ambiguous that its meaning is uncertain. The members of this court have been unable to agree as to the meaning of what appellee testifies was said, what he claims, constituted a special agreement.\nIt may be that if the court were in possession of all the facts known to each of the parties when this conversation was had, the significance of the language employed would be clear; the amount which appellee was then receiving for ordinary hours, if known to appellant, would throw light upon what was said. The alleged special contract being no agreement, because uncertain, appellee can recover a quantum, meruit. What under the circumstances was a reasonable compensation is what, in the absence of a special. contract, he is entitled to.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary Mr. Justice Waterman."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Flower, Smith & Musgrave, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Shuey & Gann and. P. V. Hoffman, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas Knapp Printing and Binding Company v. J. C. Guthrie.\n1. Evidence\u2014Tending to Prove an Issue, Competent.\u2014In a controversy to determine whether the words \u201cninety cents an hour double time\u201d was ninety cents an hour, itself doubling the time by doubling the price, or whether the ninety cents were to be doubled, making one dollar and eighty cents, as the wages fixed for certain night work, it is competent to show, on cross-examination, that the person claiming the latter construction was at work in the day during the same time for forty-five cents an hour.\nAssumpsit, for work, labor and services. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur H. Cheltain, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed June 1, 1896.\nFlower, Smith & Musgrave, attorneys for appellant.\nShuey & Gann and. P. V. Hoffman, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0523-01",
  "first_page_order": 521,
  "last_page_order": 522
}
