{ "id": 2592749, "name": "Cornelius Dennick et al. v. John P. Ekdahl et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Dennick v. Ekdahl", "decision_date": "1902-05-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "199", "last_page": "202", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "102 Ill. App. 199" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "20 N. Y. 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2022884 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/20/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 Mass. 8", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2111265 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/112/0008-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 317", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2805382 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/103/0317-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 210", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2636949 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/69/0210-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2612674 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/63/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ill. 607", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2670645 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/81/0607-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 403, "char_count": 6529, "ocr_confidence": 0.563, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2409229626389125e-07, "percentile": 0.6078788763360334 }, "sha256": "db3d453dd2874eeefdc934414fc4801244478013cf8350d532c82b9c8290a99a", "simhash": "1:3156d5859451b2fc", "word_count": 1175 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:51:35.524386+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Cornelius Dennick et al. v. John P. Ekdahl et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellees contend that they were constructively evicted, and hence, as they had a right to do, moved out, paying all rent for the last month during which they occupied the premises. . 1\nA physical expulsion of a: tenant is not necessary to constitute an eviction which will enable him to successfully defend against an action for rent.\nSuch acts of interference with the possession of the tenant, by the landlord, as clearly show an intention upon his part to deprive the tenant of the enjoyment of the premises, and that he shall not longer continue to occupy them, will authorize an abandonment of the possession by the tenant. 2d Ed. Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. 18, p. 298. Where a constructive eviction is claimed the intent of the landlord to evict must appear, and this is a question of fact for the jury. Taylor on Landlord & Tenant, Section 381.\nIn Morris v. Tilson, 81 Ill. 607-623, the Supreme Court said:\n\u201cThe rule laid down in Hayner et al. v. Smith and wife, 63 Ill. 430, and followed in Lynch v. Baldwin, 69 Ill. 210, and Walker et al. v. Tucker, 70 Id. 527, is, that acts by the landlord, in interference with the tenant\u2019s possession, to constitute an eviction, must clearly indicate an intention on the part of the landlord that the tenant shall no longer continue to hold the premises.\u201d See also, Chicago Legal News Co. v. Browne, 103 Ill. 317-321.\nWhere a constructive eviction is claimed, the abandonment of the premises by the tenant must be within a reasonable time after the acts complained of. Dewitt v. Pierson, 112 Mass. 8; Edgerton v. Page, 1 Hilton (N. Y.) 320; same v. same, 20 N. Y. 281.\nIn the present case there is no evidence tending to show that the landlords intended to disturb the tenants, deprive them of the enjoyment of the premises or do anything that would cause them to abandon the same. .\nThe landlords were not bound to repair; but being requested by the tenants to do so they sent a plumber, giving him no directions as to in what manner the defect complained of should he remedied. Manifestly, the landlords did not intend to do a wrongful act, or one injurious to the tenants. The plumber, a licensed workman, used his own best judgment. What he did may not have been the best thing to do but he evidently thought it was.\nThe defendants thereafter continued in the place for some six months.\nTrue it is, they did once complain to Mrs. Dennick of the sewer gas and she said she would fix it.\nIt does not appear that a complaint was made at anytime of the removal of the trap nor that it was stated that the removal of the trap caused the presence of the gas.\nWhile, whether acts constitute an eviction is a mingled question of law and fact, there must be shown an intention of the landlord, manifested by acts, to deprive the tenant of the beneficial use of the premises\u2014in brief, a violation of the landlord\u2019s contract of enjoyment, to warrant a finding of eviction by a jury. Such there was not in this case.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "James Harvey Hooper, attorney for appellants.", "S. C. Irving, attorney for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Cornelius Dennick et al. v. John P. Ekdahl et al.\n\u25a0 1. Eviction\u2014Physical Expulsion Not Necessary. - A physical expulsion of a tenant is not necessary to constitute an eviction which will enable him to successfully defend against an action by the landlord for rent.\n2. Landlord and Tenant\u2014TEM\u00cd Acts of Interference Are Necessary to Constitute an Eviction.\u2014 Such acts of interference with the possession of the tenant by the landlord as cleai'ly show an intention on his part to deprive the tenant of the enjoyment of the premises, so that he can no longer occupy them, will authorize an abandonment of the possession by the tenant.\n3. Same\u2014Where a Constructive Eviction is Relied upon\u2014Intention of the Landlord a Question of Fact.\u2014Where a constructive eviction is claimed the intent of the landlord to evict must appear, and such intent is a question of fact for the determination of the jury.\n4. Same\u2014Abandonment of the Premises Must Be Within a Reasonable Time.\u2014In case of constructive eviction, the abandonment of the premises must be within a reasonable time after the acts complained of.\nAction for Rent.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1901.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed May 22, 1902.\nStatement.\u2014In the trial court appellants\u2019 action was to recover rent alleged to be due to them as landlord.\nThe defendants admitted having, under a written lease, been tenants, but insisted that the landlord had, in making repairs, removed a certain trap under a washstand sink and thereby caused sewer gas to escape into the premises so as to render them so offensive that their further occupation was intolerable; and that being thus evicted they moved out.\nThe rent was payable monthly and it was paid for the entire month of July, appellees having moved-out July 12th. The lease ran until the first of the succeeding March, and was of \u201c the tailor shop \u201d in the rear of 183 Sedgwick street, to be used as a tailor shop.\nThe lessees covenanted to surrender the premises at the end of the term in as good condition as they were at the beginning, reasonable use, wear and tear and damages by the elements excepted.\nIn February the trap of a pipe in the basement of the building froze and burst; this pipe led to a wash-basin in the work room above; the basement was occupied only by a gas engine, no fire being kept in it. The plaintiffs being notified of the bursting by the defendants and by them told \u201cto fix it,\u201d sent a plumber. The plumber had before been there three times and put in new traps; he, a witness for the defendants, testified that if he \u201c put in a new trap it would be froze every day and they couldn\u2019t use the sink, so it was no use of putting in a new trap there; so I just put down a straight piece of pipe; because there was no people living there and they had a tailor shop in the place; the basement was not occupied by people. The pipe connected only with a sink, not with a water closet.\u201d The plumber was not instructed to remove the trap.\nAfter the removal of the trap, sewer gas came up; \u201c the house was full of it; \u201d the defendant\u2019s work-people complained and some of them and one of the tenants became ill. Mrs. Dennick was told by one of the defendants, of the sewer gas, and she said she would fix it, but did not.\nJames Harvey Hooper, attorney for appellants.\nS. C. Irving, attorney for appellees." }, "file_name": "0199-01", "first_page_order": 215, "last_page_order": 218 }