{
  "id": 2786699,
  "name": "Arthur J. Stevens, Defendant in Error, v. Ferdinand Weyer, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stevens v. Weyer",
  "decision_date": "1912-04-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,216",
  "first_page": "469",
  "last_page": "471",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 Ill. App. 469"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 3932,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "sha256": "cd5a187a95e0608bc50fea36ac8bfffd90fdbad4be1ba62351a460ca3a7cb322",
    "simhash": "1:a918cdd595db8610",
    "word_count": 665
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:11.843184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arthur J. Stevens, Defendant in Error, v. Ferdinand Weyer, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an action in forcible detainer, in which Arthur J. Stevens obtained a judgment against Ferdinand Weyer for possession of the premises, No. 7010 Marshfield avenue, Chicago, which judgment we are asked to reverse.\nIt appears that on June 17,1909, one James H. Collins sold to Weyer the aforesaid premises under a contract signed by both parties, which provided that Weyer should make a cash payment on said date of $70; $30 on June 23, 1909; $25 on August 5, 1909, and $25 on the 5th day of each succeeding month until the purchase price was fully paid. Said contract also contained these further provisions:\n\u201cIn case of failure of the said second party to make either of the said payments, or any part thereof, or to perform any of tlie covenants or agreements on his part hereby made and entered into then this contract shall, at the option of the said first party, be forfeited and determined, and said second party shall forfeit all payments made by him on this contract and all interest right to said premises shall be retained by the said first party in fnll satisfaction and liquidation of all damages by him sustained, and he shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of the said premises aforesaid.\n\u201cIt is further agreed by and between the parties hereto, that the time of payment shall be the essence of this contract and all of the provisions hereof, and that all of the agreements and covenants herein contained shall extend to and be obligatory upon the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the respective parties hereto, but it is expressly agreed that this contract shall not be sold or assigned by the said second party without the written consent of the first party first had and obtained.\nCollins afterwards signed and acknowledged a deed before a notary public in the oEce of Stevens, conveying said premises to Stevens, and left the same with the notary public. He also, on July 1, 1909, signed an assignment on the back of the contract of purchase, by which, for one dollar and other good and valuable considerations, he assigned \u201cthe within contract to Arthur J. Stevens, and guarantee the fulfillment of all the conditions by the parties to it.\"\nThe only payments made by Weyer were the cash payment of $70 and the $30 due June 23, 1909. On October 25,1909, Stevens caused a written notice to be served on Weyer, to the effect that unless the arrears of installments due under the contract were paid before October 30, 1909, the contract would be forfeited; and again on November 1,1909, a more formal written notice was served on Weyer, to the effect that said contract had been declared forfeited on account of defaults in the payment of installments, and demanding 'immediate possession of the premises..\nThe defense is that there was not a suEcient showing of the right of possession in Stevens to entitle him to a judgment.\nWe are of the opinion that by the assignment Stevens succeeded to all the rights of Collins under the contract, and this, together with the evidence of the execution of the deed from Collins to Stevens, was sufficient evidence of Stevens \u2019 right to possession.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cunnea, Scully & Rafferty, for plaintiff in error.",
      "David Eichberg, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arthur J. Stevens, Defendant in Error, v. Ferdinand Weyer, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,216.\nForcible entry and detainer\u2014when right to possession established as against vendee failing to perform. A conveyance by the vendor to the plaintiff coupled with an assignment of the contract of purchase which was breached sufficiently establishes the right to possession.\nForcible detainer. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Michael F. Girten, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 11, 1912.\nRehearing denied April 25, 1912.\nCunnea, Scully & Rafferty, for plaintiff in error.\nDavid Eichberg, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0469-01",
  "first_page_order": 487,
  "last_page_order": 489
}