{
  "id": 5406273,
  "name": "Arthur Dixon, Appellee, v. Ruby Schwartz, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dixon v. Schwartz",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,852",
  "first_page": "349",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 349"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 3234,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3787780677560738
    },
    "sha256": "110d06fc7b1e2b480218ae8e08d829b9d5ba6897c6d225d9a8220b1b64174440",
    "simhash": "1:53d57045f809117e",
    "word_count": 560
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arthur Dixon, Appellee, v. Ruby Schwartz, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n9. Landlord and tenant\u2014what does not constitute possession of premises under lease. Possession, of premises by a lessee prior to execution and delivery of a lease therefor is not under such lease so far as the lessor\u2019s rights under the lease are concerned.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank Schoenfeld, for appellant.",
      "Calhoun, Lyford & Sheean, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arthur Dixon, Appellee, v. Ruby Schwartz, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,852.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry P. Dolan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Arthur Dixon, plaintiff, against Ruby Schwartz, defendant, to recover on a guaranty of a lease. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,149.75, defendant appeals.\nFrank Schoenfeld, for appellant.\nCalhoun, Lyford & Sheean, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Guaranty\u2014when evidence is sufficient to show execution of before signing and delivery of lease. Evidence held sufficient to sustain the finding that the guaranty of a lease was executed before the signing and delivery of the lease by the lessor, in an action to recover on such guaranty.\n2. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 443 \u2014when evidence is sufficient to show that lease was not canceled. Evidence held sufficient to sustain the finding that the lease in question was not canceled by agreement of . the parties, in an action to recover on a guaranty of the lease.\n3. Guaranty, \u00a7 7*\u2014when no independent consideration is necessary. Where a guaranty of a lease is executed before the execution and delivery of a lease by the lessor, no independent consideration is necessary.\n4. Seals, \u00a7 2*\u2014when presumed that each person signing instrument adopted a seal. When a bond or other sealed instrument purports on its face to be sealed by all its signers, and there are several seals to it, but not so many as there are names, it will be presumed that each person signing it adopted some one of' the seals.\n5. Guaranty, \u00a7 12*\u2014when is as broad as terms of lease. A guaranty on a lease of \u201cthe payment of rent, and the performance of the covenants by the party of the second part in the within lease, covenanted and agreed, in manner and form as in said lease provided,\u201d held to be as broad in its terms as the lease.\n6. Guaranty, \u00a7 16*\u2014when obligation of guarantor becomes fixed. The obligation of the guarantor on a lease of payment of rent and performance of the covenants by the lessee in the lease, held to have become fixed upon default by the lessee of which the guarantor would not be entitled to notice, the guaranty being unconditional.\n7. Guaranty, \u00a7 17*\u2014what is sufficient notice to guarantor of default. Commencement of suit on the guaranty of a lease is sufficient notice to the guarantor of the lessee\u2019s default.\n8. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 40*\u2014what does not constitute delivery of lease to lessee. The handing of a lease to one of the parties to procure the signature of a guarantor thereto does not constitute a delivery thereof to the lessee, the lease not having been executed by the lessor.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI' to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0349-01",
  "first_page_order": 377,
  "last_page_order": 379
}