{
  "id": 869000,
  "name": "Harmony Company v. Albert Rauch",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harmony Co. v. Rauch",
  "decision_date": "1896-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "97",
  "last_page": "99",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 97"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "20 N. Y. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2022884
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/20/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 Ill. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2755599
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/90/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ill. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2824240
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/100/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Ill. 541",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N. Y. 616",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        539984
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/76/0616-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4875950
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/14/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5211670
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/33/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5292109
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/37/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        820047
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/67/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5319447
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0262-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 4213,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.030605452286986617
    },
    "sha256": "89d6e58f0cbcb2a9e4c267dd393449233492d543c2ab1fc6dd76207c311fc89c",
    "simhash": "1:efcab7e2c8b51fc8",
    "word_count": 742
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:11.174453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harmony Company v. Albert Rauch."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis being an action to recover rent, appellant was entitled to recoup whatever damages it may have sustained on account of any breach by appellee of the covenants of the lease. The court should therefore not have instructed the jury to find for appellee. Pepper v. Rowley, 73 Ill. 262; Lindley v. Miller, 67 Ill. 244; Lunn v. Gage, 37 Ill. 19; Christy v. Ogle, 33 Ill. 295; Reeves v. Hide, 14 Ill. App. 233.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ernest Saunders, attorney for appellant; William G. Ernest, of counsel.",
      "Bulkley, Gray & More, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harmony Company v. Albert Rauch.\n1. Recoupment\u2014In Actions for Bent.\u2014In actions to recover rent, the defendant may recoup whatever damages he may have sustained on account of any breach of the covenants of the lease by the landlord.\nTranscript from a Justice of the Peace.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1896.\nStatement of the Case,\nThis case was originally brought before a justice of the peace to recover one month\u2019s rent, being the month \"of September, 1894, clue by the terms of a certain lease executed by the parties to this suit, amounting to the sum of $150. In the courts below both trials resulted in a judgment for the appellee, and appellant now prosecutes this appeal from the Circuit Court to reverse the last judgment.\nAppellant claims that the landlord, appellee, was guilty of such acts of omission as to entitle it to abandon the pre\u00f1ases before the expiration of the term. In other words, a constructive eviction is sought to be set up as a bar to a recovery. It is provided in the lease that \u201c the lessor shall keep said premises heated to a minimum of seventy-five degrees for ten hours per day, and for six working days per \"week, and also to furnish said party of the second part with power equal to ten horse power for ten hours per day for six clays each week, national holidays and five days additional for repairs during the year excepted (or more if necessary).\u201d\nIt is claimed by appellant that appellee was guilty of a breach of the foregoing covenant, in that he did not furnish the requisite steam heat and power, and that it was entitled to abandon or at least to recover the damage it suffered, against appellee\u2019s claim, and there was evidence tending to sustain such claims.\nThe court instructed the jury to find for appellee the sum of $150, being one month\u2019s rent.\nErnest Saunders, attorney for appellant; William G. Ernest, of counsel.\nWhere the use is a privilege or easement, which constitutes a part of the demised premises, the deprivation of the tenant of such is such a disturbance of possession as to create an eviction. U. S. Savings Bank v. Newton, 76 N. Y. 616.\nIf the tenant loses benefit of any part of the demised premises by act of the landlord the. rent is thereby suspended. Walker v. Tucker, 70 Ill. 541.\nWhere lessor rents room in a building and agrees to keep building in repair, and neglects to repair, so that roof leaks and renders room unfit for purpose for which it is rented, and lessee leaves same on this account, lessor will not be entitled to recover rent for room for time after it is abandoned. Russell v. Lloyd, 100 Ill. 214.\nIf a party acts contrary to the intention of a covenant he is guilty of a breach. Gear, Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 87; Comyn\u2019s Dig. \u201c Covenant,\u201d 2.\nThe ordinary measure of damages for breach of covenant is actual loss resulting to complainant directly, proximately and actually from the breach. Gear, Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 88.\nBulkley, Gray & More, attorneys for appellee.\nIf the tenant retains possession of the leased premises (actual or constructive) he is liable for the rent so long as this possession continues. The tenant, before he can defend against recovery of rent, must abandon the premises and not retain either the actual or constructive possession of them. Burnham v. Martin, 90 Ill. 438.\nHo wrongful act of the landlord will suspend or extinguish the rent if the tenant continues to keep the premises during the time such rent accrues. Taylor on Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 380; Edgerton v. Page, 20 N. Y. 281."
  },
  "file_name": "0097-01",
  "first_page_order": 93,
  "last_page_order": 95
}