Metro Investments Co. v. Enge

Appellate Court of Illinois

Metro Investments Co. v. Enge

297 N.E.2d 756, 12 Ill. App. 3d 77, 1973 Ill. App. LEXIS 2189

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 17, 1973

DocketNo. 57014

StatusPublished

This text of 297 N.E.2d 756 (Metro Investments Co. v. Enge) 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

Metro Investments Co. v. Enge, 297 N.E.2d 756, 12 Ill. App. 3d 77, 1973 Ill. App. LEXIS 2189 (Ill. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DEMPSEY

delivered the opinion of the court:

Thomas Enge rented an apartment on West Madison Street, Chicago, from the plaintiff, Metro Investments Co., Inc. The apartment was occupied by his friend, Jean Jefferson, from November 1968 until June 1969. The tenancy was from month to month and rent was paid to the plaintiff’s agent. The rent, tendered in March 1969, was refused by the agent for the reason that the building was under new management.

No further demand for rent was made and Miss Jefferson and other tenants stayed in the building. However, services which had been furnished them, such as repairs, garbage collection and hot water, were discontinued and the tenants moved out. Miss Jefferson was the last to leave.

The plaintiff sued Enge for the rent which had been unpaid from March 16th to June 1st and obtained a judgment for $253.00. Enge appeals and contends that the plaintiff’s refusal to accept tendered rent barred its action to collect; that the plaintiff waived the covenant to pay rent because it breached an implied warranty that the premises were habitable, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for leave to file interrogatories.

The plaintiff-appellee has not filed a brief in this court. When an appellee, such as this corporate plaintiff, does not appear to support the judgment in its favor and does not oppose an appellant’s prayer for reversal, a summary reversal is permissible. We believe such a disposition is appropriate in this case. Perez v. Janota (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 90, 246 N.E.2d 42; Wieboldt Stores v. Mautner (1965), 61 Ill.App.2d 368, 210 N.E.2d 597; 541 Briar Place Corp. v. Harmon (1964), 46 Ill.App.2d 1, 196 N.E.2d 498.

The judgment is reversed.

Reversed.

McNAMARA and McGLOON, JJ., concur.

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

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DEMPSEY

delivered the opinion of the court:

Thomas Enge rented an apartment on West Madison Street, Chicago, from the plaintiff, Metro Investments Co., Inc. The apartment was occupied by his friend, Jean Jefferson, from November 1968 until June 1969. The tenancy was from month to month and rent was paid to the plaintiff’s agent. The rent, tendered in March 1969, was refused by the agent for the reason that the building was under new management.

No further demand for rent was made and Miss Jefferson and other tenants stayed in the building. However, services which had been furnished them, such as repairs, garbage collection and hot water, were discontinued and the tenants moved out. Miss Jefferson was the last to leave.

The plaintiff sued Enge for the rent which had been unpaid from March 16th to June 1st and obtained a judgment for $253.00. Enge appeals and contends that the plaintiff’s refusal to accept tendered rent barred its action to collect; that the plaintiff waived the covenant to pay rent because it breached an implied warranty that the premises were habitable, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for leave to file interrogatories.

The plaintiff-appellee has not filed a brief in this court. When an appellee, such as this corporate plaintiff, does not appear to support the judgment in its favor and does not oppose an appellant’s prayer for reversal, a summary reversal is permissible. We believe such a disposition is appropriate in this case. Perez v. Janota (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 90, 246 N.E.2d 42; Wieboldt Stores v. Mautner (1965), 61 Ill.App.2d 368, 210 N.E.2d 597; 541 Briar Place Corp. v. Harmon (1964), 46 Ill.App.2d 1, 196 N.E.2d 498.

The judgment is reversed.

Reversed.

McNAMARA and McGLOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 N.E.2d 756, 12 Ill. App. 3d 77, 1973 Ill. App. LEXIS 2189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metro-investments-co-v-enge-illappct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack