{
  "id": 5817428,
  "name": "Abe Sackim, Appellee, v. Emil J. Krimsky, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sackim v. Krimsky",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,771",
  "first_page": "381",
  "last_page": "382",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 381"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2000,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "sha256": "f8b38278f6e2dcc4c7405a183d987d9cde51fa328cf43b7938ea2a112d8e5678",
    "simhash": "1:347be40d902727f9",
    "word_count": 335
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Abe Sackim, Appellee, v. Emil J. Krimsky, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1752*\u2014when judgment affirmed for insufficiency of abstract. An affirmance of a judgment id warranted where appellant\u2019s abstract fails \u25a0 to show what was the judgment complained of.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1287*\u2014when presumed that defense was inadequate. Where the abstract is silent as to an affidavit of merits, on appeal from a judgment against defendant, the presumption is in favor of the judgment and that the defense was inadequate.\n3. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 72 \u2014when lease construed as providing for payment of rent in monthly instalments. Where a lease, after naming the sum payable for the entire term, proceeds: \u201cPayable as follows: One Hundred ($100) dollars on the 15th day of October, 1916, and .............. ($......) on the 15th day of each and every succeeding month of the term,\u201d it is to be interpreted as meaning that $100 shall be paid on account of rent on the 15th day of each month during the term, and the objection that this construction might operate to compel the payment eventually of $50 more than the sum payable for the entire term is of no force where plaintiff\u2019s brief disclaims any intention of demanding more than the total sum specified, and admits that plaintiff would have no such right.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. E. Gtallioh, for appellant.",
      "Howe & Levy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Abe Sackim, Appellee, v. Emil J. Krimsky, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,771.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Nels A. Larson, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 29, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Abe Sackim, plaintiff, against Emil J. Krimsky, defendant, to recover on a guaranty for the payment of rent and performance of the covenants of a lease. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nM. E. Gtallioh, for appellant.\nHowe & Levy, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number*"
  },
  "file_name": "0381-01",
  "first_page_order": 407,
  "last_page_order": 408
}