{
  "id": 5056906,
  "name": "Peter Papulias, Appellant, v. Carl Wirtz, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Papulias v. Wirtz",
  "decision_date": "1947-05-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 44,083",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "378",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "331 Ill. App. 376"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "169 N. W. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 Iowa 990",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        2253814
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/184/0990-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 Ill. App. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5316337
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "362"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/156/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Ill. App. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5513801
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "339"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/237/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "379 Ill. 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2552905
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "435"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/379/0430-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 2999,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.169391220727932e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5859216116460844
    },
    "sha256": "177d124e63d30e8c01a9c42d365e89f07a8368732e467f66ee62d8c030c27001",
    "simhash": "1:a735138064f29dc1",
    "word_count": 512
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:59:14.602039+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peter Papulias, Appellant, v. Carl Wirtz, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Niemeyer\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment in his forcible detainer action to recover possession of premises in which defendant conducted a tavern and liquor store.\nThe only question presented on the appeal is the right of plaintiff to terminate the tenancy on 60 days\u2019 notice. The lease was for a period of three years, \u201cunless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided.\u201d Paragraph 28 of the printed portion of the lease provided that \u201clessor shall have the privilege to cancel this lease and any renewal or extension hereof and any holdover hereunder, at any tim\u00e9 during the term, thereby created, by giving to said lessee, in any of the methods hereinabove described, a sixty days\u2019 notice to quit, . . . and that at the expiration of said sixty days the term hereby or thereby created is to cease and be determined.\u201d Attached to the lease was a typewritten rider of three clauses. The only one material on the appeal is the second, which provided: \u201cThe Lessee may extend the term of this lease for an additional three years, at a rental of $250 per month, by giving to the Lessor a ninety day prior written notice of his intention so to do.\u201d Before the expiration of the original term plaintiff gave a 60 days\u2019 notice of the termination of the lease. The sufficiency of this notice is not questioned. Defendant\u2019s position is that the provision for the extension of the lease is in conflict with and abrogates the provisions for cancellation of the lease. In construing a written contract effect must be given to each word and term of the contract, rejecting none as meaningless, repugnant or surplusage (Rhomberg v. Texas Co., 379 Ill. 430, 435), and as stated in Lurie v. Rock Falls Mfg. Co., 237 Ill. App. 334, 339, cited by both parties, \u201cThe law is that effect must be given if possible to all of the terms of a contract, and this applies to instruments partly written and partly printed. Neither the printed portion nor the written portion shall be disregarded unless there is a conflict between the two in which case the written portion will prevail.\u201d\nThere is no conflict between the written and printed portions of the lease before us. The original term of three years was subject to termination on the giving of 60 days\u2019 notice. The extension of the lease, if defendant had exercised his option, would likewise have been subject to termination. LaSalle Theater v. Taft, 156 Ill. App. 356, 362. Pearson v. Howell, 184 Iowa 990, 169 N. W. 368, is directly in point and supports the views expressed herein.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment for plaintiff.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nO\u2019Connor, P. J., and Feinberg, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Niemeyer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Max C. Liss, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Meyer W. Rosin and Harry A. Biossat, both of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peter Papulias, Appellant, v. Carl Wirtz, Appellee.\nGen. No. 44,083.\nOpinion filed May 19, 1947.\nReleased for publication June 3, 1947.\nMax C. Liss, of Chicago, for appellant.\nMeyer W. Rosin and Harry A. Biossat, both of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 402,
  "last_page_order": 404
}