{
  "id": 5080738,
  "name": "Frederick A. Bryden and Charles E. Steffen v. J. Blanche Northrup and James R. Bryson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bryden v. Northrup",
  "decision_date": "1895-04-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "233",
  "last_page": "235",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 233"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill. 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5348758
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/104/0106-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ind. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill. 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        12121297
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/130/0028-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 305,
    "char_count": 3508,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.021571229624068e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7454758945405697
    },
    "sha256": "8ccf5fdd28b23edbaffd9150871b8839004be9f38e5c9a0097fd00da60f16302",
    "simhash": "1:9a510f68ca7c6cda",
    "word_count": 593
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frederick A. Bryden and Charles E. Steffen v. J. Blanche Northrup and James R. Bryson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee demised premises described in the lease,\" the three story and basement brick dwelling known as number one (1) Washington Place,\u201d \u201cto be occupied for studio, salesroom and dwelling purposes and for no other purpose whatever.\u201d\nThe appellant Steffen now holds the basement as an under tenant and has fitted it up and begun to keep there what the parties here call a saloon; by which we understand them to mean what in law is a dramshop.\nThe Superior Court by decree in favor of the appellee, enjoined such use of the basement, from which decree the defendant appealed.\nThe words of the lease made a condition that the premises should be occupied \u201c for no other purpose \u201d than those mentioned. White v. Naerup, No. 5351, this court.\nIt is true that \u201c the words of an instrument shall be taken most strongly against the party employing them,\u201d but that rule \u201c ought to be applied only where other rules of construction fail.\u201d Broom, Leg. Max., 594.\n\u201c We must give to the words their common and generally accepted meaning.\u201d Schneider v. Turner, 130 Ill. 28.\nNow while we often hear dramshops spoken of as saloons, and see them so mentioned in city ordinances, and on signs upon them may read, \u201c sample room,\u201d \u201c family resort \u201d and, perhaps, other designations, yet no one has, as we verily believe, yet endeavored to attract custom by calling his dramshop a \u201c studio \u201d or a \u201c salesroom.\u201d\nIn a strained construction, a dramshop, being a place where sales are made, might be held to be a salesroom; yet such a construction would violate the rule quoted from 130 Ill.\nTo prevent the occupation for a purpose within the prohibition in the lease, equity will interfere. Taylor, Landlord & Tenant, Sec. 416. The decree is right and is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Elmer Bishop and Allen, Payne & Blake, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Appellees\u2019 Brief, Blum & Blum, Attorneys."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frederick A. Bryden and Charles E. Steffen v. J. Blanche Northrup and James R. Bryson.\n1. Injunctions\u2014Unauthorized Occupation by Tenants.\u2014An injunction, will lie to prevent the occupation of demised premises for a purpose prohibited by the lease.\nBill for an Injunction.\u2014Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. William G-. Ewing, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the March term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 4, 1895.\nElmer Bishop and Allen, Payne & Blake, attorneys for appellants.\nAppellees\u2019 Brief, Blum & Blum, Attorneys.\n\" It is sufficient to say in general terms that whenever, under the terms of a lease, the lessee is restricted to the use of demised premises in a particular manner or for a specific purpose, a violation of the covenants by a use of the premises in a different manner or for another purpose furnishes ground for the interposition of equity by injunction. And in all such cases a court of equity is regarded as the appropriate forum for administering the law, the jurisdiction being based in part upon principles identical to those which govern the adequate remedy of specific performance, and the necessity of preventing a constantly recurring grievance resulting from the continuous breach of the covenants which can not be adequately compensated by an action for damages.\u201d High on Injunctions, Sec. 436; 12 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1025; Howard v. Ellis, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 369; Taylor\u2019s Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 691.\nAnd the restriction as to the use of the premises in the original lease is binding upon every sub-tenant, although he may never have seen such lease. Wheeler v. Earl, 5 Cush. C. C. 31; Madox v. White, 4 Ind. 72; Webster v. Nichols, 104 Ill. 106."
  },
  "file_name": "0233-01",
  "first_page_order": 229,
  "last_page_order": 231
}