{
  "id": 5383385,
  "name": "Lina Walper et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Andrew Malkewicz, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walper v. Malkewicz",
  "decision_date": "1915-01-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,214",
  "first_page": "108",
  "last_page": "109",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 108"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 1925,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "sha256": "1299a2c14822c5bb842ede577d5a2579003219c6143f209278f0306f4d5e4bf3",
    "simhash": "1:0970d40c80b82fd8",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lina Walper et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Andrew Malkewicz, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 301*\u2014when landlord entitled to rent. Where evidence showed the signing of a written lease, that the lessee moved away from the premises and failed to pay rental for the last eight months of his term, and the evidence failed to show that the lease was cancelled, the lessor was entitled to recover the rental due under the lease.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John B. Fruechtl, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Frank H. Novak, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lina Walper et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Andrew Malkewicz, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,214.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Lanklobd and tenant, \u00a7 453 \u2014what sufficient to show surr render o/ premises. The fact that repairs are made hy a lessor after a lessee has moved away from the premises is not sufficient as an acceptance of the premises and a surrender.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Ebank H. Gbaham, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nReversed and judgment here with finding of facts.\nOpinion filed January 5, 1915.\nStatement of the Case,\nAction of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Lina Walper, John Walper and Rudolph Walper, heirs of Jacob Walper, deceased, against Andrew Malkewicz on a written lease. It appeared that certain premises were leased for three years to the defendant, at a total rental of $936, payable monthly in advance at the rate of $26 per month, and that during the last year the defendant moved away from the premises and failed to pay eight months\u2019 rent. The defendant contended that the lease was can-celled and terminated. The case was tried before the court without a jury resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendant, whereupon the plaintiffs brought this writ of error.\nJohn B. Fruechtl, for plaintiffs in error.\nFrank H. Novak, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0108-01",
  "first_page_order": 152,
  "last_page_order": 153
}