Mayr v. United States Brewing Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Mayr v. United States Brewing Co.

207 Ill. App. 214, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 608

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJuly 11, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,190

StatusPublished

This text of 207 Ill. App. 214 (Mayr v. United States Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mayr v. United States Brewing Co., 207 Ill. App. 214, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 608 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Forcible entry and detainer, § 79* — when lease is admissible as evidence of title. In an action of forcible entry and detainer against an occupant of saloon premises, held that a lease from a lessee of such premises to defendant antedating the acquisition of the premises by the plaintiff was admissible in evidence to show defendant’s title. 2. Landlord and tenant, § 429* — when no privity of relation is created between sublessee and subsequent owner. There is no privity of relation between the occupant of premises under a sublease, antedating the sale of the land to another person, and such person, although the latter executes a new lease to the same lessee from whom the sublessee obtained the prior lease. 3. Landlord and tenant, § 429* — when sublessee’s rights are not affected by new lease of lessee from subsequent owner. The rights of a sublessee under a lease antedating the acquisition of premises by a person are not affected by a lease from such person to the lessee under whom the sublessee has been holding. 4. Landlord and tenant, § 429* — when sublessee does not lose his rights under lease. A sublessee does not lose his rights under a lease, where, upon the sale of the premises, and the execution of a new lease to the original lessee by the purchaser, he pays rent to the lessee and later to the lessee’s assignee, and, prior to the default in the rent due from the assignee to the owner, and upon refusal of the assignee to accept the rent, timely tenders the rent due to the owner of the premises.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Forcible entry and detainer, § 79* — when lease is admissible as evidence of title. In an action of forcible entry and detainer against an occupant of saloon premises, held that a lease from a lessee of such premises to defendant antedating the acquisition of the premises by the plaintiff was admissible in evidence to show defendant’s title. 2. Landlord and tenant, § 429* — when no privity of relation is created between sublessee and subsequent owner. There is no privity of relation between the occupant of premises under a sublease, antedating the sale of the land to another person, and such person, although the latter executes a new lease to the same lessee from whom the sublessee obtained the prior lease. 3. Landlord and tenant, § 429* — when sublessee’s rights are not affected by new lease of lessee from subsequent owner. The rights of a sublessee under a lease antedating the acquisition of premises by a person are not affected by a lease from such person to the lessee under whom the sublessee has been holding. 4. Landlord and tenant, § 429* — when sublessee does not lose his rights under lease. A sublessee does not lose his rights under a lease, where, upon the sale of the premises, and the execution of a new lease to the original lessee by the purchaser, he pays rent to the lessee and later to the lessee’s assignee, and, prior to the default in the rent due from the assignee to the owner, and upon refusal of the assignee to accept the rent, timely tenders the rent due to the owner of the premises.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 Ill. App. 214, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayr-v-united-states-brewing-co-illappct-1917.