{
  "id": 8499402,
  "name": "Mrs. Edith Byrne, Appellee, v. Mrs. J. A. McCarthy, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Byrne v. McCarthy",
  "decision_date": "1921-05-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 26,520",
  "first_page": "139",
  "last_page": "141",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 Ill. App. 139"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2925473
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/207/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2579063
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/12/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Kan. 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "case_ids": [
        1210569
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/kan/66/0512-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 N. J. Eq. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J. Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        743231
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nj-eq/32/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N. Y. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        29850
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/151/0253-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 4076,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.322568420012132
    },
    "sha256": "150f7f413d914139bb37c3a29d52db0a3ea0111faebe35f9cc55e2e226944fe4",
    "simhash": "1:368f080094e70dda",
    "word_count": 727
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:13:09.801721+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Holdom, P. J., and Dever, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Mrs. Edith Byrne, Appellee, v. Mrs. J. A. McCarthy, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff, bringing an action of forcible detainer, upon trial by the court had judgment for possession, from which defendant appeals.\nThe evidence was that in March, 1919, the owner of the premises in question, Walter S.- Bogle, leased them to defendant for a term described in the written lease as from \u201cthe first day of May, A. D. 1919, until the first day of May, A. D. 1920.\u201d There was also provision giving either party the right to terminate the lease on said last mentioned day upon giving the other party sixty days\u2019 written notice, otherwise the lease to continue from year to year until terminated by like notice. February 3, 1920, a written notice was sent by tbe lessor wbicb advised defendant tbat tbe lease of tbe apartment \u201cexpires April 30, 1920, and will not be renewed.\u2019.\u2019 Tbe following March tbe owner made a written lease of said premises to plaintiff in this case, for a term beginning May 1, 1920, expiring April 30, 1921.\nTbe first point made by defendant\u2019s counsel is tbat tbe notice is deficient and insufficient in tbat it advised tbat tbe lease expired \u201cApril 30, 1920,\u201d whereas tbe term demised according to tbe written lease was \u201cuntil tbe first day of May, 1920.\u201d It is argued tbat as tbe term did not expire until May 1, tbe notice tbat it expired April 30 was ineffective.\nUnder many decisions tbe word \u201cuntil\u201d is a word of exclusion; tbe words \u201cuntil May 1, 1920,\u2019.\u2019 mean tbat tbe term would expire at twelve o\u2019clock at night on April 30, so tbat tbe notice specifying April 30 as tbe date of expiration was proper. 24 Cyc. 960; People v. Robertson, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Buchanan v. Whitman, 151 N. Y. 253; Vanatta v. Brewer, 32 N. J. Eq. 268; Croco v. Hille, 66 Kan. 512, 72 Pac. 208; Webster v. French, 12 Ill. 302; Words &s Phrases, vol. 8, p. 7217.\nFurthermore, if tbe first day of May, 1920, was included in tbe term, the-lessee would be liable for an instalment of rent on that day under tbe provision of tbe lease calling for payment \u201cupon tbe first day of each and every succeeding month.\u201d This was not tbe contract of the parties, and May 1, 1920, should be excluded from tbe term of tbe lease.\nTbe notice is also criticised as indicating no intention on tbe part of tbe lessor to terminate tbe lease, hence it continued as a tenancy from year to year. We are of tbe opinion tbe notice sufficiently indicated an intention to terminate. Tbe words, \u2018\u2018 expires April 30, 1920, and will not be renewed,\u201d could convey no other meaning except that the lessor wished to terminate the l\u00e9ase on that date.\nSome point is attempted with reference to\\the authority of the agent to sign the notice of termination, hut no objection on this ground was made to its introduction in evidence upon the trial, a\u00fcd it is too late to make the objection for the first time in this court. Fowler v. Chicago Rys. Co., 207 Ill. App. 430.\nWe see no sufficient reason to reverse the judgment and it is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHoldom, P. J., and Dever, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael L. Igoe, for appellant.",
      "Gallagher, Kohlsaat & Rixaker, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mrs. Edith Byrne, Appellee, v. Mrs. J. A. McCarthy, Appellant.\nGen. No. 26,520.\n1. LiAndlo\u00fcd and tenant \u2014 when notice of expiration sufficient. Under a lease from the-first day of May, 1919, until the first day of May, 1920, providing for its termination by a 60-day notice by either party, a notice specifying April 30, 1920, as the date of expiration was proper.\n2. Landlord and tenant \u2014 time of expiration of lease. The word \u201cuntil\u201d is a word of exclusion and the words \u201cuntil May 1, 1920\u201d in a lease mean that the term expires at 12 o\u2019clock at night on April 30.\n3. Landlord and tenant \u2014 when notice of termination sufficient. A notice that a lease \u201cexpires April 30, 1920, and will not be renewed\u201d was a sufficient indication of intention on the part of the landlord to terminate the lease.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1920.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 16, 1921.\nMichael L. Igoe, for appellant.\nGallagher, Kohlsaat & Rixaker, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0139-01",
  "first_page_order": 195,
  "last_page_order": 197
}