{
  "id": 5252973,
  "name": "L. R. Williams v. Charles H. Scott",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Scott",
  "decision_date": "1897-04-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "51",
  "last_page": "53",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 51"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3007697
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/139/0067-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 215,
    "char_count": 2979,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.857674492488095e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45890069266586586
    },
    "sha256": "7e0ba1876a00b9c05b252c82c0809b01713ca76b42fe996fff4edb7b948ba472",
    "simhash": "1:9549af1a5f299186",
    "word_count": 525
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. R. Williams v. Charles H. Scott."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellant was the proprietor of the Park Gate Hotel during the \"World\u2019s Pair season of 1893, and engaged the appellee as steward at $200 per month a little before May 1, 1893. At the end of June, 1893, the appellant discharged the appellee. So far there is no dispute on the facts. The case of the appellee is that he was engaged for a term\u2014the World\u2019s Fair season\u2014to end November 1, 1893, while the appellant insists that the engagement was only for a month on trial at $200. As the appellee worked two months, the month on trial seems to cut but little figure in the controversy. On trial implies that something was depending upon the result of the trial.\nThe preponderance of the evidence is with the appellee as to the terms of the engagement.\nThat there was any cause given to the appellee for the discharge is not proved, and it is clear that it was against his will, while he was ready, able and willing to continue in the service. He vainly endeavored to find employment during: the next four months.\nHe sued, and has recovered $500.\nErrors, if any there be, in the. admission or rejection of evidence which could have had no effect upon the result, need not be considered.\nIt was his duty to make efforts to earn what he could after his discharge, and such efforts do not defeat his action, though his declaration does aver \u201c that at the time of his discharge and from thence until the expiration of the period of his employment he was ready, able and willing,\u201d etc. The words \u201c and from thence until the expiration of the period of his employment \u201d are surplusage, which need not be proved. 1 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 51.\nThe appellee might have sued the day he was discharged, and the trial not coming on until the term of service had ended he would have been entitled to recover his whole salary, less what he could have earned. Mount Hope Cem. Ass\u2019n v. Weidenmann, 139 Ill. 67.\nIn such an action continued readiness could not have been averred, which proves that such an averment was needless.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Slusser & Johnson, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Johnson, Herring & Brooke, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. R. Williams v. Charles H. Scott.\n1. Errors\u2014Not Affecting the Result Need not be Considered.\u2014Errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, which could have had no affect upon the result, need not be considered by a court of appeal.\n2. Master and Servant\u2014 Wrongful Discharge\u2014Continued Readiness to Perform not Necessary.\u2014It is the duty of a servant discharged wrongfully, to earn what he can after his discharge, and the words, \u2018 \u2018 and from thence until the expiration of the period of his employment. \u201d in an averment of readiness to perforin, are suiplusage and need not be proved.\nAssumpsit, for a wrongful discharge. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1897.\nSlusser & Johnson, attorneys for appellant.\nJohnson, Herring & Brooke, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0051-01",
  "first_page_order": 51,
  "last_page_order": 53
}