Case ID: ill-app_19/html/0631-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FIRST district.
    No. 66 — 2336.
    Chicago Dry Dock Co. v. Rice.
    Opinion filed June 9, 1886.
    This was assumpsit brought by Albert H. Bice against the Chicago Dry Dock Company, to recover a balance of §300 claimed by the plaintiff to be due him for services as foreman of the defendant’s dry dock. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant for the term of one year, under a special contract, and that he served the defendant during the full period of his employment. The only substantial controversy is as to the amount of wages or salary fixed by the contract. The judge below, who tried the case, by agreement, without a jury, and who saw and heard the witziesses, reached the conclusion that the evidence as to the terms of the contract preponderated in favor of the plaintiff, and the court sees no ground for disturbing his finding.
    Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Schuyler & Kremer; for appellee, Mr. John C. Richberg.
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judge below, Joseph E. Gary.