{
  "id": 2573820,
  "name": "Isidore B. Rappaport et al. v. James A. Miller",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rappaport et al. v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1903-03-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "350",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 Ill. App. 350"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "158 Ill. 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3137691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/158/0479-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2246,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0822860715045549
    },
    "sha256": "98082e2122471a902e83ad68cb5ae8f92c16ff3001dbc03742839483e2227925",
    "simhash": "1:c6542e05c9839238",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:25.672987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Isidore B. Rappaport et al. v. James A. Miller."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellee recovered judgment for one installment of rent due from appellants by the terms of a written lease. The lease was for a term of eleven months, from June 1, 1896, to April 31, 1897, but appellants vacated after something over two months\u2019 occupancy. The defense is an alleged eviction by appellee during August, 1896.\nThere is evidence tending to show that appellants were moving out their things with the aid of one Silverman who claimed to have purchased them. Appellee thereupon distrained for the rent due and placed a custodian in charge. The evidence which it is claimed tended to show an eviction was that this custodian refused appellants admission to the premises. The evidence is conflicting as to what occurred and no reason appears for interference with the finding of the jury in favor of appellee. \u201c The question is one of fact dependent on the circumstances of the particular case, and to be determined by the jury.\u201d Barrett v. Broddie, 158 Ill. 479-483.\nThis suit was for rent alleged to be due under the lease for the month of September, 1896. The lease was put in evidence, and there is evidence that demand had been made. It is not denied that if there was no eviction the amount claimed was due. There was evidence which tended to show that app\u00e9llants were endeavoring to dispose of or remove their effects from the premises with an intention of abandoning. We find no errors in the instructions as they appear in appellants\u2019 brief. No instructions, however, are set forth in the abstract, and alleged errors in that respect are not before us.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.\nMr. Justice Burke did not participate.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Leon Zolotkoff, attorney for appellants.",
      "H. M. Matthews, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Isidore B. Rappaport et al. v. James A. Miller.\n1. Landlord and Tenant\u2014Eviction is a Question of Eact for the Jury.\u2014The question of eviction is one of fact dependent on the.circumstances of the particular case, to be determined by the jury.\nAction for Rent.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edmund W. Burke, Judge presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1902.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 31, 1903.\nLeon Zolotkoff, attorney for appellants.\nH. M. Matthews, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0350-01",
  "first_page_order": 372,
  "last_page_order": 373
}