{
  "id": 5200974,
  "name": "Illinois State Journal Company v. Charles Green, Jr.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Illinois State Journal Co. v. Green",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "307",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 305"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2794,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "sha256": "10bbd9a29d4959806637b8d6a0c740bba7b4e5478006ca938e0efc6177eb82ad",
    "simhash": "1:d9c442ad44d66db0",
    "word_count": 470
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Illinois State Journal Company v. Charles Green, Jr."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellant company was engaged in the publication of a weekly and daily newspaper and doing job printing.\nAppellee was a typesetter in its employ, and a member of an organization called the Typographical Union.\nThe company concluded to set type with machines lately invented for that purpose.\n- These machines are complicated and of delicate mechananism, and those operating them must have skill and experience.\nThe Typographical Union formulated a code of rules for the government of operators on such machines, and those seeking to fit themselves for such positions, and the employers of such workmen.\nThe appellant company adopted the code, and appellee began work for it as a \u201clearner\u201d on one of the typesetting machines; worked twenty-three days and was discharged.\nOne of the rules of the Typographical Union, before referred to, is as follows:\n\u201c Fifth. Learners to be paid at the rate of eight dollars per week for day work, and nine dollars per week for night work, for the first thirty-six days\u2019 work, after which they shall be paid as journeymen.\u201d\nAppellee construed this rule to amount to a contract to employ him for the full period of thirty-six days, and brought suit to recover for the entire time. He prevailed, and the company appealed.\nThe purpose of the rule was to fix the price to be paid \u201c learners,\u201d the period of time during which operators should be deemed \u201clearners,\u201d and when one who began as a \u201c learner \u201d should be recognized as a journeyman, and become entitled to receive a journeyman\u2019s wages.\nThe rule, as we construe it, had no effect to fix the period or term of employment of either learners or journeymen.\nTherefore the judgment must be and is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown, Wheeler & Brown, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Connolly, Mather & Snigg, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Illinois State Journal Company v. Charles Green, Jr.\n1. By-Laws\u2014Typographical Union\u2014A Rule Construed.\u2014In a suit against the publishers of a newspaper, it was shown that they had adopted the rules of the Typographical Union in regard to the operation of typesetting machines, one of which was as follows: \u2018 \u2018 Fifth. Learners to be paid at the rate of eight dollar's per week, for the first thirty-six days\u2019 work, after which they shall be paid as journeymen.\u201d The plaintiff construed this rule to amount to a contract for the full period of thirty-six days and the trial court so decided. Held, that this was error, and that the rule had no effect to fix the term of employment.\nTranscript, from a justice of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County; the Hon. James A. Creighton, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 11, 1896.\nBrown, Wheeler & Brown, attorneys for appellant.\nConnolly, Mather & Snigg, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-01",
  "first_page_order": 303,
  "last_page_order": 305
}