{
  "id": 5412943,
  "name": "Augusta Lehmann et al., Appellees, v. City of Chicago, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lehmann v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,041",
  "first_page": "414",
  "last_page": "415",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 414"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3324,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.707077941864722e-08,
      "percentile": 0.493344399615576
    },
    "sha256": "11cfb6bc521dec550be5d2d0aed0f3d9419b8716d418882d89e3b7677fdbb7e0",
    "simhash": "1:8903fb97d70b221c",
    "word_count": 571
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Augusta Lehmann et al., Appellees, v. City of Chicago, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 477 \u2014when notice by lessor\u2019s agent to quit at expiration of term does not affect character of tenure thereafter. Where a lease expired by its terms at a certain date, a notice by the lessor\u2019s agent that possession of the premises would be expected to be surrendered at that date would have, if authorized, no legal effect or bearing upon the character of the lessee\u2019s tenure after expiration of the lease, if the landlord assented to the holding over.\n2. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 441 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show holding over under terms of lease. Evidence held insufficient to show an oral agreement by lessor\u2019s agent to extend the lease to March 1, 1911, or his authority so to extend it, and sufficient to show a holding over on the terms of the lease without a new agreement, in an action to recover rent for such holding over.\n3. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 88 \u2014what does not constitute election by landlord to treat tenant as one from year to year. Accepting payment of monthly rent after expiration of a lease according to its terms is an election by the landlord to treat the tenant as one from year to year.\n4. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 485 \u2014when notice to quit at expiration of term is waived. A notice given a tenant to quit the premises at- the expiration of his lease according to its terms is waived by the landlord demanding and receiving rent after such expiration of the lease.\n5. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 88 \u2014when city holding over is bound as tenant from year to year. A city, lessee under an authorized lease, holding over after the expiration of the lease according to its terms without a new agreement is bound the same as a private individual to a tenancy, from year to year.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel A. Ettelson, for appellant; Leon Horn-stein, of counsel.",
      "Henry L. Wallace, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Augusta Lehmann et al., Appellees, v. City of Chicago, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,041.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Adeeor J. Petit, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 9, 1917.\nRehearing denied February 19, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Augusta Lehmann, Emelie W. Peacock, Edward J. Lehmann, Augusta E. Spies, Otto W. Lehmann and Edith M. Behr, plaintiffs, against City of Chicago, defendant, to recover rent for certain premises for the months of March, April and May, 1911. Prom a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.\nThe defendant leased the premises from June 1, 1908, to June 1, 1910, with the privilege of renewal for another year provided defendant gave six months\u2019 notice. \u00d1o notice was given, but in November, 1909, the defendant\u2019s agent had a talk with plaintiffs\u2019 agent as to extending the lease to March 1, 1911, and defendant claimed that they then so agreed, which plaintiffs denied. Possession was retained to March 1,1911, and rent demanded and paid each month to December 1, 1910. Warrants were issued for the succeeding three months but not delivered, the comptroller not being \u201cready to pay.\u201d\nSamuel A. Ettelson, for appellant; Leon Horn-stein, of counsel.\nHenry L. Wallace, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0414-01",
  "first_page_order": 438,
  "last_page_order": 439
}