{
  "id": 3020486,
  "name": "Edward Steer, Appellee, v. Julius Oppenheimer, trading as J. Oppenheimer & Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Steer v. Oppenheimer",
  "decision_date": "1918-06-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,997",
  "first_page": "397",
  "last_page": "398",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 397"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 2014,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "sha256": "ab005e22fb3313fc73d8236e17f1ccf666ef260f68e5795e3fe29f464b2f3e33",
    "simhash": "1:7e77da824507b61e",
    "word_count": 337
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward Steer, Appellee, v. Julius Oppenheimer, trading as J. Oppenheimer & Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lee J. Frank and Mary Lee Colbert, for appellant.",
      "Brown, Brown & Brown, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward Steer, Appellee, v. Julius Oppenheimer, trading as J. Oppenheimer & Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,997.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Shebidan E. Fby, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1918.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 10, 1918.\nRehearing denied June 24, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Edward Steer, plaintiff, against Julius Oppenheimer, trading as J. Oppenheimer & Company, defendant, to recover rent for the use of premises. From a judgment for plaintiff for $489.06, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 456 \u2014 what constitutes use of premises by tenant. In an action to recover rent, the occupation of the premises by leaving therein articles \u25a0 which, while not defendant\u2019s property, had been loaned to him by the owners, held to be a use of the premises for his benefit.\n2. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 456* \u2014 when occupancy of premises shown. In an action for the rent of premises, where the defense is that the premises had been abandoned, evidence that defendant sublet the premises after the date of the alleged abandonment and received the rental therefor is sufficient to show his occupancy.\n3. Landlord and tenant, \u00a7 323* \u2014 when exclusion of deed to show transfer of premises to oumer by tenant proper. In an action for rent, evidence held insufficient to show that defendant had surrendered possession to the owner of the fee, and the exclusion of a deed claimed to show the transfer to such alleged owner held proper.\n4. Interest, \u00a7 23* \u2014 when allowed for delay. In an action for rent where it appears that the refusal to pay was for the sole purpose of delaying or defeating a just claim, plaintiff will be allowed interest on his claim.\nLee J. Frank and Mary Lee Colbert, for appellant.\nBrown, Brown & Brown, for appellee.\nSee Illonois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0397-01",
  "first_page_order": 451,
  "last_page_order": 452
}