Ramsaier v. Oetting, 115 Ill. App. 70 (1904)

June 30, 1904 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 11,383

115 Ill. App. 70

Christian Ramsaier, Jr., v. Fred Oetting.

Gen. No. 11,383.

1. Verdict—when, not disturbed. The Appellate Court will not disturb a verdict where no error of law has intervened and only a question of fact is involved, as to which the evidence is contradictory.

Action of assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Farrand, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1903.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 30, 1904.

Walter G. Kraft, for appellant.

Philetus Smith, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Ball

delivered the opinion of the court.

In March, 1898, appellant hired the minor son of appellee to drive one of his teams at a wage of one dollar per day. This employment continued until January 5, 1899, when the boy quit work. The father sued for the balance due. At the trial he recovered a verdict and judgment for $131.25, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant raises two questions: First, that the employment was for a year, and as the son, without reasonable excuse, quit before the contract time had expired, there can be no recovery; and, second, that if a right of recovery exists, the verdict is greater than the amount justly due.

The evidence of appellant tends to sustain each of these propositions. That of appellee tends to support a hiring by the day, and to uphold the verdict as to the amount of the damages. These are questions of fact which it was the province and duty of the jury to decide. An examination of the record discloses no reason why we should disturb their finding.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.