{
  "id": 2880031,
  "name": "Francis and Mamie Kirsch, Appellants, v. Prosper J. Soucy, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Francis v. Soucy",
  "decision_date": "1915-07-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "260",
  "last_page": "262",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ill. App. 260"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 3938,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "sha256": "4291843b0fa29bbbd4166b17451a79deb2d1625611fe900cecf7fdf4c2dfe768",
    "simhash": "1:29d5a8ea2dff9748",
    "word_count": 684
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:49:21.752065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Francis and Mamie Kirsch, Appellants, v. Prosper J. Soucy, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 325a \u2014instruction as compromise of claim for rent. An instruction in an action for rent, as to a compromise of the tenant\u2019s claim for dapage for nonrepair, held not prejudicial where the jury found against such claim.\n4. Trial, \u00a7 45 \u2014calling attention of jury to inconsistency of general verdict and special findings. A statement made by the trial judge to the jury that: \u201cThere seems to be a variance between the special finding and general verdict; they are not consistent. Are you satisfied with this verdict? If not, you may retire with the officer to your room to further consider the same,\u201d held not to call attention to any particular finding.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edgar P. Holly, for appellants.",
      "W. L. Coley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Francis and Mamie Kirsch, Appellants, v. Prosper J. Soucy, Appellee.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from, the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. Robert H. Flaknigan, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 21, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Prosper J. Soucy against Francis and Mamie Kirsch for rent. The appellee recovered judgment for one hundred and two dollars, the jury allowed the defendant thirty-six dollars by way of damages for nonrepair of the demised premises. The defendant appeals.\nThe evidence showed that prior to September, 1906, a house had been in possession of one Abbott; that his collectors of rent were Swarthouse and Whitney; that during the latter part of September the property passed into the control of the plaintiff under a trust deed and that it so continued until the present time; that the defendants occupied the property at the time it came into possession of Soucy, and they had paid rent to Abbott and to his collectors at the rate of thirty dollars per month. They continued to occupy the property without any new arrangement with Soucy until January 4, 1907, when they moved out and surrendered the key to the latter.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Compromise and settlement, \u00a7 16 \u2014when finding of absence of compromise sustained by evidence. A finding that a claim for rent and a tenant\u2019s damages for nonrepair of demised premises had not been compromised, held proper under conflicting evidence.\n2. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 375a \u2014instruction as to duty to make repairs. An instruction in an action to recover rent by one holding property under a trust deed, that the plaintiff could recover unless he had agreed to make repairs, held not prejudicial to the defendant, where the jury was further instructed that if the latter rented property from the grantor in such deed, under an agreement by the latter to keep the property in repair, that such agreement was binding on the plaintiff.\nIt further appeared that a sewer was broken and that sewage rose into the yard and ran back into the cellar of the house; that Kirsch complained to Whitney (Abbott\u2019s collector) and Whitney said: \u201cI only collect the rent for myself until the money that Mr. Abbott owes me is paid.\u201d That Kirsch went to Soucy, thinking he was the owner, and told him of the condition, also of other conditions of the house, showing it to be in a bad state of repair, and Soucy told him he had nothing to do with the house except to collect rent, that he did not know who the owner was. Kirsch then made the necessary repairs at his own expense.\nIt was contended by the appellants that there was an agreement upon the part of the landlord Abbott to keep the house in repair; and also that when they went to surrender the key that Soucy agreed, on account of the damage done, to release the rent then owing by appellants. This, however, was denied by Mr. Soucy.\nEdgar P. Holly, for appellants.\nW. L. Coley, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0260-01",
  "first_page_order": 282,
  "last_page_order": 284
}