Stickle v. Otto

• Decision Date: 30 September 1877
• Citation: 1877 WL 9684,86 Ill. 161
• Parties: THOMPSON STICKLEv.MOSES OTTO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

86 Ill. 161

1877 WL 9684 (Ill.)

THOMPSON STICKLE

v.MOSES OTTO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1877.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the City Court of Aurora; the Hon. FRANK M. ANNIS, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. BROWN & SOUTHWORTH, for the appellant.

Mr. A. J. HOPKINS, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

The present appeal is prosecuted to reverse a judgment recovered by Otto against Stickle, in an action of assumpsit for work and labor, for $162.

Appellant was a dealer in marble, engaged in setting up monuments, etc.; and, in August, 1873, employed appellee to work for him in his business. Appellee accordingly worked for him, under this engagement, until in March, 1874, when the parties settled their accounts, and appellee was paid by appellant all that was due him at that time. Appellee then ceased to work, or, as the witnesses express it, “laid off,” for about a week, when he resumed work, and continued to work for appellant until February, 1875, when he again ceased to work, or ““laid off,” for about nine days, and then again resumed work, which he continued until in April, 1876. In addition to the labor so performed, appellee charged appellant for the use of a horse for about eleven months, during the time, and also for the use of a double-harness, and also for moneys expended in appellant's business, which it was his duty to repay.

Appellant denied his liability to pay for the use of the horse and harness, and he also denied that appellee had expended any money on his account. He also claimed that when he first employed appellee he agreed only to pay him $30 per month for work in the summer and $15 per month for work in the winter; that when appellee ceased to work, or “laid off,” in March, 1874, and before appellee resumed work, it was agreed appellant should thereafter pay him only $15 per month; and that this agreement was renewed in February, 1875, when he resumed work in that year. He also claimed to have made various payments to appellee, in money, from time to time.

Appellee denied that he agreed to work for $15 per month, except for a short time in the spring of 1874, and claimed that all his other work was to be paid for at the rate of $30 per month.

The evidence on the conflicting claims was contradictory. Among other evidence relied on was that of the books of account of the respective parties.

It appears that appellant, after testifying to the correctness of the entries in his day-books, of the various items of his account against appellee, was permitted to give his day-books in evidence, and that he then proposed to also give in evidence his ledger; but the court, on appellee's objection, refused to permit the ledger to be given in evidence.

Appellant argues that this was error. He says it was competent evidence as a memorandum, even if it was not as a book of accounts, and he cites Wolcott et al. v. Heath, 78 Ill. 433, in support of his position. All that is...