Pfund v. Zimmerman
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit by the appellee against the appellants to recover for work and labor. The declaration contained three counts.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit by the appellee against the appellants to recover for work and labor. The declaration contained three counts. First count avers, that on January 18, 1858, at, etc., by an agreement between the parties, the appellants employed the appellee as a salesman in their business, at a salary of §1,000 per annum, with an additional allowance of §1.50 per day ; that the appellee performed such service from that day until May 1, 1859; and concludes with the usual breach of nonpayment of the wages. The second count is like the first substantially, except that the expiration…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
This judgment must be affirmed. The evidence in this case does not show a hiring for any specified time. The salary of $1,000 per year, as testified by the witness, was a rate of compensation for the time for which the plaintiff should serve, and not a specification of any particular term of service, agreed upon.
The first instruction asked for by the defendants was most properly refused. There was not a particle of evidence tending to show that the plaintiff had been guilty of embezzlement, and in such a state of the proof, it would have been highly improper for the court to have given an…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Atwood v. Curtiss Candy Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1959
- Chadwick v. Morris & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1912
- Fuchs v. WeibertAppellate Court of Illinois · 1924
- Odell v. Chicago Great Western RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 1918
- Griffin v. DomasAppellate Court of Illinois · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.