{
  "id": 2917080,
  "name": "Walter L. Manning and Lulu Manning, Appellees, v. Jacob L. Kesner, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Manning v. Kesner",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,580",
  "first_page": "475",
  "last_page": "476",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 475"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2076,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "sha256": "9402f1361bf79e6fe63f7284daf47fb5b33dce0b090f3e00d6c6155e7c273331",
    "simhash": "1:0d5fb08df02f38df",
    "word_count": 352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Walter L. Manning and Lulu Manning, Appellees, v. Jacob L. Kesner, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion-of the court.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1245*\u2014when insufficiency of evidence may not be complained of. Appellant cannot complain of the insufficiency of evidence as to the value of the good-will of a business due to his own objection to the admission of evidence relating thereto,i\n4. Words and phrases\u2014\u201cgood-mil\u201d defined. The good-will of a trade, consists merely in the probability that the old customers will continue their patronage of the old place.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D\u2019Ancona & Pflattm, for appellant.",
      "Thomas B. Lantry, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Walter L. Manning and Lulu Manning, Appellees, v. Jacob L. Kesner, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,580. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 84 \u2014what does not constitute parol evidence varying terms or substance of lease. In an action by-lessees against the landlord for breach of a covenant in a lease as to the use of the premises, evidence of conversation between defendant\u2019s agent and the plaintiffs at the time of making the lease, as to the location of a new entrance to the premises in case one should be made by the lessor, was admissible to aid the court in the construction of the covenant in the light of the situation of the parties at the time the writing was executed, and did not constitute parol evidence which varied the terms or substance of the lease.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 372*\u2014who may testify as to value of goodwill of, business. The owners and operators of a business are competent witnesses as to the value of its good-will.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Raefebty, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 5, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Walter L. Manning and Lnln Manning, plaintiffs, lessees, against Jacob L. Kesner, defendant, the landlord, to recover for breach of a covenant in a lease. From a judgment for plaintiffs for $1,100, defendant appeals.\nD\u2019Ancona & Pflattm, for appellant.\nThomas B. Lantry, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0475-01",
  "first_page_order": 503,
  "last_page_order": 504
}