{
  "id": 5341669,
  "name": "S. F. Sayrs, Defendant in Error, v. E. F. Thompson, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sayrs v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1912-10-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,221",
  "first_page": "207",
  "last_page": "208",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 Ill. App. 207"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "228 Ill. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5628547
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/228/0610-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 Ill. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2992896
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/136/0354-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1505,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6024534635030846
    },
    "sha256": "b1b2e31e2fd78a924bb32adac3fb91a7481389355639951a4788235d1dca43a1",
    "simhash": "1:5655545551d43fee",
    "word_count": 265
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:03:04.791769+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. F. Sayrs, Defendant in Error, v. E. F. Thompson, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a suit in forcible detainer united with a claim for rent under Section 48 of the Municipal Court Act. A judgment was given for possession and $175 accrued rent.\nPlaintiff in error claimed a set-off for the value of improvements made by him several years prior to the purchase of the premises by defendant in error, but. had paid the latter rent for nearly four years before the suit was brought.\nIt is well settled as a general rule that a landlord is under no obligation to pay the tenant for improvements made during the term of a lease in the absence of an agreement to that effect, and none was shown in this case, either with defendant in error or his grantor. Bedford v. Bedford, 136 Ill. 354; Diederich v. Rose, 228 Ill. 610.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thompson & Clark, for plaintiff in error.",
      "M. B. Waltz, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. F. Sayrs, Defendant in Error, v. E. F. Thompson, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,221.\nLandlord and tenant \u2014 reimbursement of tenant for repairs. Where a tenant liad no agreement either with his landlord or the latter\u2019s grantor for reimbursement for sums spent in repairs he is not entitled to be repaid sums so spent during the term of the lease.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John H. Gillen, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 1, 1912.\nRehearing denied and opinion modified and refiled October 15, 1912.\nThompson & Clark, for plaintiff in error.\nM. B. Waltz, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0207-01",
  "first_page_order": 225,
  "last_page_order": 226
}
