{
  "id": 2601755,
  "name": "Henry Watson v. Abraham Fletcher",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watson v. Fletcher",
  "decision_date": "1869-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "498",
  "last_page": "499",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "49 Ill. 498"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 2179,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.279527471968892e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8706781746735042
    },
    "sha256": "814cf7e9fde89e0ecc9e1ece40f45bf5d5ac9dd37cb549eb9273a682b633ba7e",
    "simhash": "1:9c990f63eeb5669c",
    "word_count": 376
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:54.123593+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Watson v. Abraham Fletcher."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of forcible detainer, brought by the assignee of the lessor, against the assignee of the lessee, on the ground that the lease had been forfeited by the non-payment of taxes which the lessee had covenanted to pay. The land had been sold in 1867 for the taxes of 1866. In March, 1868, Allen, the original lessor, assigned the lease to the plaintiff, Watson, having, a few days before the assignment, accepted from the defendant a year\u2019s rent in advance. The acceptance of the year\u2019s rent in advance and the assignment of the lease, were, undoubtedly, a waiver of the forfeiture. When the right to declare a forfeiture accrued to the lessor, upon the sale for non-payment of taxes, it was optional with him to do so or to continue the lease in force. He elected the latter alternative, as conclusively shown by his acts, and his subsequent assignee acquired no right to annul the lease for a default which his assignor had thus waived. The plaintiff, after the assignment to him, redeemed the land from the tax sale. If the defendant, on demand, should refuse to refund the money thus paid, perhaps such refusal would create a new ground of forfeiture, though this we do not decide, as the question is not presented.\nThe judgment of the court below is affirmed.\"\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. L. & L. Davis, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Billings & Wise, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Watson v. Abraham Fletcher.\n1. Lease\u2014waiver of forfeiture\u2014what acts of lessor will amount to. Where the right had accrued, to declare a lease forfeited for non-payment of taxes which the lessee had covenanted to pay, and thereafter the lessor accepted from the lessee a year\u2019s rent in advance, and shortly after assigned the lease to another: Held, that these acts of the lessor amounted to a waiver of the forfeiture.\n2. Same\u2014assignee\u2014bound by assignor\u2019s acts. Nor in such case, does the assignee of the lessor acquire any right to declare a forfeiture, that right having been waived by the acts of his assignor.\nAppeal from the Alton City Court; the Hon. Henry S. Baker, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion states the case sufficiently.\nMessrs. L. & L. Davis, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Billings & Wise, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0498-01",
  "first_page_order": 498,
  "last_page_order": 499
}