{
  "id": 5409967,
  "name": "William Billos and George Thanos, Appellees, v. Joseph F. Kozlowski, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Billos v. Kozlowski",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,812",
  "first_page": "285",
  "last_page": "286",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 285"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2250,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.674192435675172e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5290138537034399
    },
    "sha256": "900c7a199ffb0cfd411a7c5b4141321b18e4fa13e38e2e4ebf47e810ed6f2030",
    "simhash": "1:0941c98b5c0bb42d",
    "word_count": 372
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Billos and George Thanos, Appellees, v. Joseph F. Kozlowski, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Damages, \u00a7 85*\u2014what is nature o\u00ed money deposited By tenant as security for rent. Money deposited by a tenant as security for rent will, as a rule, be regarded as a penalty merely and not as liquidated damages, and it is immaterial whether the deposit is called a penalty or liquidated damages, and particularly so when the deposit is out of all proportion to the rent due.\n3. Damages, \u00a7 85 \u2014what is important in determining whether deposit is penalty or otherwise. The element of reasonableness is an important factor in determining whether or not a deposit should be considered as a penalty or otherwise,' and if the forfeiture would be unreasonable, the entire deposit should. not be applied as liquidated damages.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Beach & Beach, for appellant; Paul C. Schussman, of counsel.",
      "W. A. Morrow, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Billos and George Thanos, Appellees, v. Joseph F. Kozlowski, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,812.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Damages, \u00a7 85 \u2014when money deposited ~by tenant as security for rent not treated as liquidated damages. In an action to recover money deposited under a lease to secure the payment of rent, where the plaintiffs had been dispossessed under a judgment for possession, and the rent of one month amounting only to one-eighth of the deposit, was involved, and the issue was whether the defendant was entitled to retain the entire deposit as liquidated damages, held that to compel the forfeiture of the entire amount of the deposit for the nonpayment of a month\u2019s rent would be unconscionable.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by William Billos and George Thanos, plaintiffs,'against Joseph T. Kozlowski, defendant, to recover money deposited as security for the payment of rent. From a judgment for $853.28 in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.\nBeach & Beach, for appellant; Paul C. Schussman, of counsel.\nW. A. Morrow, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. 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": "0285-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 314
}