#### The University Club of Chicago, Appellee, v. Earl H. Deakin, Appellant.

Gen. No. 18,009.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 15, 1913.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the University Club of Chicago, a corporation, against Earl H. Deakin to recover balance *485of rent due for use of premises leased Tby plaintiff to defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $2,007.66, defendant appeals.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Landloed and tenant, § 83 * —when clause in lease not a dependent covenant. A clause in a lease that lessor will not rent any other store in the building to any tenant making a specialty of the sale of pearls, held not a dependent covenant.

2. Landloed and tenant, § 81*—when restrictive covenant in lease not violated. Covenant not to rent any other store in the building to any tenant making a specialty of the sale of pearls during the term of the lease, held not violated by landlord leasing to another for a “watch maker and jewelry establishment and for no other purpose” though such latter tenant did sell pearls.

3. Landloed and tenant, § 276*—when acts of landlord do not debar payment of rent. Wrongful act of the landlord does not debar him from recovery of rent, unless the tenant by such act has been deprived in whole or in part of the possession, either actually or constructively, or the premises rendered useless.

4. Landloed and tenant, § 81 *—restrictive covenants in lease strictly construed. Covenants restraining the power of alienation, or in restraint of trade, will be strictly construed against the restriction.

5. Landloed and tenant, § 84*—when parol evidence not admissible in construing lease. Parol evidence not admissible to modify or change the plain unambiguous meaning of terms in a lease.

6. Landloed and tenant, § 60*—implied covenants. Courts will not imply covenants which might and ought to have been expressed, if intended.

John S. Goodwin and Robert F. Pettibone, for appellant.

Matz, Fisher & Boyden, for appellee.

*

See Ulinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Duncan

delivered the opinion of the court.