Bd. of Trustees of The Univ. of Illinois v. Bruner

• Decision Date: 24 October 1898
• Parties: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS v. BRUNER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

175 Ill. 307

51 N.E. 687

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

v.BRUNER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1898.

Error to appellate court, First district.

Action by James D. Bruner against the board of trustees of the University of Illinois. From a judgment for plaintiff, affirmed in the appellate court (66 Ill. App. 665), defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Cunningham & Boggs, for plaintiff in error.

Newman, Northrup & Levinson, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant brought suit against plaintiff in error, in the superior court of Cook county, for an alleged balance due him on salary as a professor in the faculty of the university. On a trial before the court without a jury, judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $300 and costs, which, on appeal to the appellate court, has been affirmed.

Plaintiff's case is that he was employed to teach in the university for the year 1894-95, beginning September[175 Ill. 308]1, 1894, at a salary of $1,800; that he taught during the school year ending about June 1, 1895; that he received only the sum of $1,500 for his services, leaving a balance due him of $300. The defense sought to be interposed to this claim is that, about the beginning of the vacation of 1895, plaintiff left the institution, and went to Chicago, where, during the months of July and August, he was in the employ of the Chicago University; and it is insisted that for these two months a pro rata amount ($300) should be deducted from the year's salary. In other words, the controversy between the parties grows out of the different constructions they place on the contract of employment. Plaintiff's contention is that he was employed for a school year of nine months, the understanding between him and the university trustees being that no services would be required of him during the summer vacation of three months. The defendant seems to understand that it was entitled to the time of the plaintiff for the whole year, of twelve months, whether it needed his services or not, and therefore, if he earned anything by working for others, the amount should be credited on his salary. The only written evidence of the employment, so far as shown by the abstract, is a notification addressed to plaintiff, signed, ‘W. L. Pillsbury, Secretary,’ dated July 10, 1893, saying: ‘The board of trustees of the University of Illinois has appointed you professor of the Romance languages in the university, at a salary of $1,800 a year, beginning September 1, 1893. Please advise me whether or not you accept this appointment.’ The appointment was accepted, and it appears that the employment was continued for the next year under the same appointment. On March 16, plaintiff tendered his resignation, to take effect September 1, 1895. He then continued to teach until the beginning of the summer vacation, when he left the institution. Under these facts, we do not regard the construction of the agreement as being before us, even if propositions of law had been submitted to the...