{
  "id": 5301706,
  "name": "Elias Ray v. George W. Haines",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ray v. Haines",
  "decision_date": "1869-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "485",
  "last_page": "486",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ill. 485"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 103,
    "char_count": 1053,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5798889719389835e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8170852818060049
    },
    "sha256": "0a080f62914bf19d63f63da4d1a8439f0b1cf1e6c11b6ef478c939f9a04fe1d0",
    "simhash": "1:b1217f6869bce2b4",
    "word_count": 181
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:11:47.107839+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Elias Ray v. George W. Haines."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nIn this case a minor had contracted to work for the defendant nine months, but left after working six weeks. Being a minor, his contract was not obligatory upon him,- and he was entitled to recover from his employer the value of the services rendered. This value the court inferred from the amount admitted by the defendant to have been due the plaintiff when he left, as wages, and we are not inclined to reverse because the proof was not more positive.\nJudgment affirmed. .",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Ingersoll & McCune, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. W. G. Randall and Messrs. Bangs & Shaw, for the appellee,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Elias Ray v. George W. Haines.\nMinor\u2014not bound by Ms contract. Where a minor contracted to work nine months, but worked one month and a half, and quit, it wasJield, he was not bound by his contract, and could recover from his employer the value of the services' rendered.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. Samuel L. Richmond, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion sufficiently states the case.\nMessrs. Ingersoll & McCune, for the appellant.\nMr. W. G. Randall and Messrs. Bangs & Shaw, for the appellee,"
  },
  "file_name": "0485-01",
  "first_page_order": 485,
  "last_page_order": 486
}