Case ID: ill-app_187/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elizabeth Gordon Smith, Defendant in Error, v. American Corset Company, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,423.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry C. Beitler, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 19, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Elizabeth Gordon Smith against American Corset Company, a corporation, for $165.37 for a balance alleged to be due for salary and expenses while in the employ of defendant under a written contract. Defendant filed a set-off of $305.70 for goods, wares and merchandise furnished to plaintiff and retained by her when she quit her employment. The trial was before the court without a jury, and the court found for plaintiff on her claim and for the defendant on its set-off, and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $16. To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and ebbob, § 1173
      
      —when questions of Taw not presented for review. Where no written propositions to be held as law in the decision of the case were submitted to the court, trying the case without a jury, no questions of law are presented for review.
    2. Appeal and ebbob, § 1173*—when only the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewable. On review of a judgment entered by a court without a jury, the only question open for consideration is whether the evidence sustains the judgment, where no questions of law were preserved and no questions upon the rulings on the evidence at the trial were preserved in the record or argued by counsel.
    3. Master and servant, § 84*—sufficiency of evidence to sustain recovery for salary. In an action against a corset company for wages and expenses, where there was a defense of set-off for goods furnished to and retained by plaintiff when she quit employment, a judgment for plaintiff held sustained by the evidence.
    Charles W. Espey, for plaintiff in error; John J. Sonsteby, of counsel.
    McEwen, Weissenbach, Shrimski & Meloan, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.