Sauber v. Collins

Appellate Court of Illinois

Sauber v. Collins

40 Ill. App. 426, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 625

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 8, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 Ill. App. 426 (Sauber v. Collins) 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

Sauber v. Collins, 40 Ill. App. 426, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 625 (Ill. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Waterman, J.

Appellee rented certain premises to one Kronberg, and appellant guaranty the payment of rent by the lessee. Kronberg abandoned the premises, claiming to have done- so under a verbal agreement previously made with appellee for a surrender.

Appellant, being sued upon his guaranty, set up that the lease had been surrendered. The evidence came far short of establishing either an agreement to surrender or an acceptance of the abandonment as a surrender. The lease was under seal and its terms could not be varied by parol. Chapman v. McGrew, 20 Ill. 100; Humes Bros. v. Taylor, 63 Ill. 43; Barnett v. Barnes, 73 Ill. 216; Reeves v. Hyde, 14 Ill. App. 233; Breher v. Reese, 17 Ill. App. 545; Lewis v. Fish, 40 Ill. App. 372; I. C. R. R. Co. v. B. & O. & C. R. R., Co., 23 Ill. App. 531; Same v. Same, October term, Supreme Court, Ills.

Appellee voluntarily introduced evidence reducing the amount, which by the terms of the lease and guaranty he was apparently entitled to recover from $550 to $131.50, and while the peremptory instruction to the jury, to find for him that amount, ought not to have been given, yet as the jury ought under the evidence to have so found, the instruction did no harm.

The verdict was in accordance with the law and the evidence, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Waterman, J.

Appellee rented certain premises to one Kronberg, and appellant guaranty the payment of rent by the lessee. Kronberg abandoned the premises, claiming to have done- so under a verbal agreement previously made with appellee for a surrender.

Appellant, being sued upon his guaranty, set up that the lease had been surrendered. The evidence came far short of establishing either an agreement to surrender or an acceptance of the abandonment as a surrender. The lease was under seal and its terms could not be varied by parol. Chapman v. McGrew, 20 Ill. 100; Humes Bros. v. Taylor, 63 Ill. 43; Barnett v. Barnes, 73 Ill. 216; Reeves v. Hyde, 14 Ill. App. 233; Breher v. Reese, 17 Ill. App. 545; Lewis v. Fish, 40 Ill. App. 372; I. C. R. R. Co. v. B. & O. & C. R. R., Co., 23 Ill. App. 531; Same v. Same, October term, Supreme Court, Ills.

Appellee voluntarily introduced evidence reducing the amount, which by the terms of the lease and guaranty he was apparently entitled to recover from $550 to $131.50, and while the peremptory instruction to the jury, to find for him that amount, ought not to have been given, yet as the jury ought under the evidence to have so found, the instruction did no harm.

The verdict was in accordance with the law and the evidence, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Ill. App. 426, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sauber-v-collins-illappct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack