{
  "id": 2830121,
  "name": "The University Club of Chicago, Appellee, v. Earl H. Deakin, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "University Club of Chicago v. Deakin",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,009",
  "first_page": "484",
  "last_page": "485",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 484"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2290,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6015250309960156
    },
    "sha256": "cdd491eb441c2b15ab9d3693c6fb5e82963dcc75d72b39eea14f938b76f8bc56",
    "simhash": "1:90afc66f528d09d8",
    "word_count": 386
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The University Club of Chicago, Appellee, v. Earl H. Deakin, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Duncan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Duncan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John S. Goodwin and Robert F. Pettibone, for appellant.",
      "Matz, Fisher & Boyden, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The University Club of Chicago, Appellee, v. Earl H. Deakin, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,009.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 15, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the University Club of Chicago, a corporation, against Earl H. Deakin to recover balance of rent due for use of premises leased Tby plaintiff to defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $2,007.66, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Landloed and tenant, \u00a7 83 \u2014when 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.\n2. Landloed and tenant, \u00a7 81*\u2014when 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 \u201cwatch maker and jewelry establishment and for no other purpose\u201d though such latter tenant did sell pearls.\n3. Landloed and tenant, \u00a7 276*\u2014when 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.\n4. Landloed and tenant, \u00a7 81 *\u2014restrictive covenants in lease strictly construed. Covenants restraining the power of alienation, or in restraint of trade, will be strictly construed against the restriction.\n5. Landloed and tenant, \u00a7 84*\u2014when parol evidence not admissible in construing lease. Parol evidence not admissible to modify or change the plain unambiguous meaning of terms in a lease.\n6. Landloed and tenant, \u00a7 60*\u2014implied covenants. Courts will not imply covenants which might and ought to have been expressed, if intended.\nJohn S. Goodwin and Robert F. Pettibone, for appellant.\nMatz, Fisher & Boyden, for appellee.\nSee Ulinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0484-01",
  "first_page_order": 508,
  "last_page_order": 509
}