{
  "id": 4986858,
  "name": "Paul J. Bueter and Antoinette Bueter, Appellees, v. Anna Krzystowczyk, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bueter v. Krzystowczyk",
  "decision_date": "1950-06-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 45,109",
  "first_page": "298",
  "last_page": "300",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "341 Ill. App. 298"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "358 Ill. 631",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5279831
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/358/0631-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5787270
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/78/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 75",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5318116
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0075-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        856625
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/57/0525-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 3422,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34666673616878824
    },
    "sha256": "8f384862b83b68b7a2e539eb7e6a1470673878f5d4ce682b4ff6836314441073",
    "simhash": "1:d96a801a73076148",
    "word_count": 547
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:05:03.989877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Paul J. Bueter and Antoinette Bueter, Appellees, v. Anna Krzystowczyk, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Lews\ndelivered the opinion, of the court.\nThis is an action in forcible entry and detainer to recover possession of the second-floor apartment in the premises owned by defendant, under the terms of an oral month-to-month lease. The court found in favor of plaintiffs and entered judgment for possession. Defendant appeals.\nThe facts are stipulated. Plaintiffs are the daughter and son-in-law of defendant who owns the premises in controversy. April 30, 1949, defendant leased the second-floor apartment to plaintiffs at a monthly rental of thirty dollars. It was agreed that plaintiffs were to take possession of the apartment when the tenant then in occupancy vacated. Shortly after leasing the apartment plaintiffs, with defendant\u2019s permission, stored their household furnishings in the attic of defendant\u2019s premises. July 22nd the former tenant vacated the apartment. On that day plaintiff Antoinette Bueter went to the apartment and found defendant tearing off wallpaper, whereupon she told defendant that she \u201cwould have her husband bring the beds down so they could have something to sleep on while they proceeded to clean and decorate the apartment.\u201d Defendant insisted on cleaning and decorating the entire apartment before plaintiffs brought any of their household furnishings into the apartment. Because of the consequent delay in the use and occupancy of the apartment by plaintiffs while it was being refurnished, plaintiff, Mrs. Bueter, and defendant got into a quarrel. Defendant \u201cchased Mrs. Bueter out of the apartment and told her to get out and stay out. \u2019 \u2019 Later in the afternoon on the same day both plaintiffs went to defendant\u2019s home \u201cand discussed taking possession of the apartment and tendered thirty dollars in payment of the first month\u2019s rent, which defendant refused.\u201d Defendant admits that plaintiff, Mrs. Bueter, objected to having all of the cleaning and decorating in the apartment done at one time, but says that during the argument which ensued plaintiff said to her \u201chere, take your key and stick your apartment you know where.\u201d On rebuttal plaintiff denied making this statement.\nWe think that the evidence warrants a finding that the plaintiffs took possession of the apartment here involved and were later evicted by defendant. Under the terms of the lease plaintiffs had a right to take possession of the apartment when it was vacated by the former tenant, in the condition it then was. (Ratkowski v. Masolowski, 57 Ill. App. 525.) To the same effect are Gazzolo v. Chambers, 73 Ill. 75, and Henderson v. Virden Coal Co., 78 Ill. App. 437. Defendant had no right to postpone the use and occupancy' by plaintiffs while she decorated the apartment.\nSince we hold that plaintiffs had actual possession of the premises in question, this action under the forcible entry and detainer act can be maintained. (West Side Trust & Savings Bank v. Lopoten, 358 Ill. 631.)\nThe judgment, for the reasons stated, is therefore affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nBurke and Kilby, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Lews"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis J. Leo, of Chicago, for appellant; Francis M. Cooper, of Chicago, of counsel.",
      "Daved Brandwein, of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Paul J. Bueter and Antoinette Bueter, Appellees, v. Anna Krzystowczyk, Appellant.\nGen. No. 45,109.\nHeard in the third division of this court for the first district at the February term, 1950.\nOpinion filed June 30, 1950.\nReleased for publication July 25, 1950.\nLouis J. Leo, of Chicago, for appellant; Francis M. Cooper, of Chicago, of counsel.\nDaved Brandwein, of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0298-01",
  "first_page_order": 324,
  "last_page_order": 326
}