History
  • No items yet
midpage
Fisher v. Haggerty
36 Ill. 128
Ill.
1864
Check Treatment
Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is a very trifling case indeed, and should not have been brought to this court, as there is no important principle involved in it

The evidence was clear, that plaintiff in error undertook and promised to pay defendant in error for his extra work, done after the usual hours of labor. It was an express undertaking of his own, and the suit was, therefore, properly brought against him.

Two juries have fully investigated the facts, and have found the same verdict, and we have no disposition — only one dollar and sixty-five cents being involved, and which is nearly all the defendant in error ever claimed of the plaintiff—to go very much into a detailed and scrutinizing examination of the testimony; The maxim, de minimis non curat lex, might well be applied here.

The judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed,.

Case Details

Case Name: Fisher v. Haggerty
Court Name: Illinois Supreme Court
Date Published: Apr 15, 1864
Citation: 36 Ill. 128
Court Abbreviation: Ill.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.