{
  "id": 2923972,
  "name": "Hyman Winograd, Defendant in Error, v. Maurice Olson, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Winograd v. Olson",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,091",
  "first_page": "343",
  "last_page": "343",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 343"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 1429,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "sha256": "c1abedc1e311486686992894269fbb578509950961e0c728aa1ec50b49330627",
    "simhash": "1:71fecf35c81f10b4",
    "word_count": 235
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hyman Winograd, Defendant in Error, v. Maurice Olson, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William A. Jennings, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hyman Winograd, Defendant in Error, v. Maurice Olson, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,091.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 67 \u2014 when lease not construed as meaning that premises demised should be used as garage. A lease providing that premises are to be used only as a store, to handle and sell automobile accessories and as a showroom for new automobiles, but no repairs of any kind will be allowed on the premises, cannot be construed as meaning that the premises demised should be used as a garage.\n2. Contracts, \u00a7 173* \u2014 when construction rendering contract valid and enforceable adopted. Where a contract is capable of opposite constructions, one of which would render it valid and enforceable and the other illegal and void, the former construction should be adopted.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Leo J. Doyle, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 2, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Hyman Winograd, plaintiff, against Maurice Olson, defendant, to recover for rent due under a lease. From a judgment for plaintiff for $114, defendant brings error.\nWilliam A. Jennings, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to'XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0343-01",
  "first_page_order": 369,
  "last_page_order": 369
}