
    Alf. Ripon, Defendant in Error, v. Alcazar Amusement Company, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,104.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed January 11, 1916.
    Rehearing denied January 25, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Alf. Ripon, plaintiff, against the Alcazar Amusement Company, defendant, to recover damages for the breach of a contract whereby the plaintiff was engaged to perform for one week at the defendant’s theater. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
    Though the contract, consisting of a printed form filled in, was not signed by the plaintiff it was signed by the defendant, which also entered the engagement upon its books. On the date when the performances were to begin the plaintiff presented himself, but permission to perform was refused. Having been unable, after diligent search, to obtain an engagement elsewhere during the week specified in the contract, the plaintiff sued for the stipulated remuneration, for which he recovered judgment.
    Frank P. Leffingwell, for plaintiff in error.
    Adolph Marks, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Contracts, § 4 —what constitutes contract for services. Where a writing signed by the defendant only, purporting to engage the services of the plaintiff to appear at the defendant’s théater, is orally accepted by the plaintiff, and the defendant makes an entry on its books of the plaintiff’s engagement, a valid contract, oral if not written, is entered into, on the breach whereof by the defendant, in refusing to allow the plaintiff to perform in accordance with the terms thereof, a suit will lie for the stipulated remuneration, such writing not being a mere proposal revocable by defendant and subject to cancellation before performance of such services.

2. Contracts, § 196 —when printed portion of contract not controlling. A written agreement consisting of a printed form, filled in and signed by the defendant, whereby he engages the services of the plaintiff fop one week, reciting that a failure on the part of either party to perform on “such week” shall not be a violation of its terms, will, on the refusal of the defendant to accept performance, support an action by the plaintiff to recover the stipulated remuneration for such services on his tendering performance, it being evident that the printed form was designed to cover a case where the term of the engagement extends over a period longer than one week.  