{
  "id": 2951652,
  "name": "Standard Brewery, Appellee, v. Patrick I. Creedon, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Standard Brewery v. Creedon",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,753",
  "first_page": "431",
  "last_page": "432",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 431"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1945,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "sha256": "2c7d063f9c756ea453ca47e8ebd4caf22eab4121d975d3a45ed263af8f0c5366",
    "simhash": "1:476b6e35c8011238",
    "word_count": 312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Standard Brewery, Appellee, v. Patrick I. Creedon, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph P. Mahoney, for appellant; J. Kentner Elliott, of counsel.",
      "Castle, Williams, Long & Castle, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Standard Brewery, Appellee, v. Patrick I. Creedon, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,753.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 26, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by the Standard Brewery, a corporation, complainant, against Patrick I. Creedon, defendant, for reformation or cancellation of complainant\u2019s alleged guaranty of the covenants of a certain lease, and to enjoin the prosecution of a certain action at law thereon brought by the defendant, to which defendant filed his cross-bill praying for damages under the guaranty. From a decree that the guaranty be canceled and complainant discharged from all obligations thereunder and defendant be perpetually enjoined from the prosecution of the pending action or any other on the guaranty, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision,\nLandlord and tenant, \u00a7 437 \u2014when lessee continuing in possession after expiration of term is not trespasser. Where the tenant under a lease remained in possession after the expiration of the lease for a term of years according to its provisions pending the fixing by appraisers of the amount of rental to be paid for a subsequent period, in accordance with the provisions of a written agreement entered into between the lessor and lessee prior to the original lease, and the lessor received payment on account of rents for such subsequent period and brought suit to enforce security given for the payment of such rents, held that such lessee was not a trespasser in continuing in possession of the premises but was a tenant.\nJoseph P. Mahoney, for appellant; J. Kentner Elliott, of counsel.\nCastle, Williams, Long & Castle, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0431-01",
  "first_page_order": 457,
  "last_page_order": 458
}