{
  "id": 5241431,
  "name": "Great Northern Hotel Co. v. John Leopold",
  "name_abbreviation": "Great Northern Hotel Co. v. Leopold",
  "decision_date": "1897-10-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "108",
  "last_page": "110",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 108"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 606",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        856582
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/57/0606-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3007697
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/139/0067-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 N. J. L. 343",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J.L.",
      "case_ids": [
        384303
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/njl/34/0343-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 2856,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.368262089269107e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3367433777027155
    },
    "sha256": "1dffd6b8ab828720411ba4ac6f8ecba09bf52a5943c5a16d7e7a325619499e63",
    "simhash": "1:3b778f66da99a796",
    "word_count": 510
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:22:34.845989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Great Northern Hotel Co. v. John Leopold."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellee has not appeared to resist this appeal.\nAs appears to us upon an ex parte showing, he has recovered $25, as for a month\u2019s wages, when he only claimed that he had earned half that sum, but claimed the other half for being wrongfully discharged before his term was out.\nThe case was tried by a jury whose verdict was:\n\u201c We, the jury, find the issues for the plaintiff, and assess the plaintiff\u2019s damages at the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25).\u201d\nThe dispute on the trial was whether he was employed for a month, or by the day at the rate of $25 per month.\nThere is no preponderance of evidence against the verdict. At the rate of $25 per month implies\u2014in the absence of j proof of other terms\u2014a hiring for one month at least.) Beach v. Mullin, 34 N. J. L. 343.\nIn case of wrongful discharge, the servant is entitled to recover as damages the amount of a month\u2019s wages, less wages earned, or which might have been earned, elsewhere. Mount Hope Cemetery Ass\u2019n v. Weidenmann, 139 Ill. 67.\nBut on that verdict the court entered judgment\u2014not only for $25\u2014but also for $ 10 attorney\u2019s fee. This was error. World\u2019s Col. Ex. v. Thompson, 57 Ill. App. 606.\nThe suit was not for wages \u201c earned and due \u201d within the meaning of the statute (3 S. & C. Stat., 2425, par. 57), nor was there any finding by the jury, as contemplated by the statute, that the amount of the verdict was for wages \u201c earned and due.\u201d\n\"Upon the appellee remitting $10 within ten days from the filing of this opinion, the judgment will be affirmed for $25, appellant to recover all its costs in this court, appellant to recover n\u00f3 other costs; otherwise, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudge Windes took no part in the decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Burnham & Baldwin, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Mo appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Great Northern Hotel Co. v. John Leopold.\n1. Master and Servant\u2014When Contract of Employment for One Month is Implied.\u2014A contract of employment at a certain rate per month implies, in the absence of proof of other terms, a hiring for one month at least.\n2. Same\u2014Attorney\u2019s Fees to Servant Suing for Wages.\u2014The act providing for attorney\u2019s fees when an employe brings suit for wages owing according to the terms of an employment, does not apply when the employe sues for damages for a wrongful discharge.\n8. Same\u2014Special Finding Required When Attorney's Fees are Claimed.\u2014Under the act providing for attorney\u2019s fees, when a servant sues for wages, the jury must find specially that the amount sued for is \u201c earned and due,\u201d and is for the wages of such servant.\nTranscript, from a justice of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1897. Affirmed if remittitur be filed, otherwise reversed and remanded. Opinion filed October 11, 1897.\nBurnham & Baldwin, attorneys for appellant.\nMo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0108-01",
  "first_page_order": 106,
  "last_page_order": 108
}