Summers v. John W. Stark.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 76 Ill. 208,1875 WL 8173 |
| Parties | NATHANIEL SUMMERSv.JOHN W. STARK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Adams county; the Hon. JOSEPH SIBLEY, Judge, presiding. Mr. GEO. W. FOGG, for the appellant.
Messrs. WARREN & GILMER, for the appellee.
This was an action brought by John W. Stark, in the county court of Adams county, against Nathaniel Summers, to recover for labor performed by the former for Summers upon his farm.
A trial of the cause was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict in favor of Stark for $350. The county court overruled a motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment upon the verdict.
Summers prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court of Adams county, where a trial was had upon the record from the county court, and the judgment affirmed.
Summers brings the record here by appeal, and asks a reversal of the judgment solely upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.
It appears from the evidence that appellee had worked for appellant at different times, in all some four or five years.
On or about the 1st of September, 1870, there was due appellee, for work prior to that time, $108.40. Appellee then commenced work for appellant, and remained in his employ until October, 1873, and the controversy between the parties arises in regard to the amount due for labor during that time.
Appellee claimed, under the contract, he was to receive $20 per month, and $2 per day during harvest, while on the other hand, appellant claimed the contract was that he was to pay $20 per month during the months of April, May, June, July and August; $18 per month for September, October and November, and $16 per month for December, January, February and March.
Appellant claimed pay of appellee for boarding in the summer of 1870, while appellee was sick and unable to work, while appellee insisted he had an agreement with appellant by which he was to be boarded for the work he did. Appellant claimed a set-off for the use of horses and a carriage by appellee, and appellee claimed that he was not to be charged for them.
There was also a clear conflict in the evidence in regard to the amount of payments made by appellant on the work. Neither was the evidence of the parties harmonious as to the time appellee actually worked and for which he should be paid.
The real controversy in the case was, what amount was actually due appellee for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flansburg v. Basin
...281; Palmer v. Weir, 52 Ill. 341; Varner v. Varner, 69 Ill. 445; Kightlinger v. Egan, 75 Ill. 141; Chapman v. Burt, 77 Ill. 337; Summers v. Stark, 76 Ill. 208; T. W. & W. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; Bishop v. Busse, 69 Ill. 403; City of Ottawa v. Sweely, 65 Ill. 434. Even where the evi......
- The Chicago v. Hale
-
Wheat v. Summers
...49 Ill. 247; Morgan v. Ry??rson, 20 Ill. 343; Toledo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217 Kightlinger v. Egan, 75 Ill. 141; Summers v. Stark, 76 Ill. 208; Simons v. Waldron, 70 Ill. 281; McNellis v. Pulsifer, 64 Ill. 494. Where the testimony is conflicting and there is evidence to sustain......
-
The Chicago v. Harmon
...Levings, 24 Ill. 223; Clement v. Bushway, 25 Ill. 200; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. McKean, 40 Ill. 218; Addems v. Suver, 89 Ill. 482; Summers v. Stark, 76 Ill. 208; Stickle v. Otto, 86 Ill. 161; Bell v. Gordon, 86 Ill. 501. A carrier in the absence of negligence, is not liable for injuries whic......