Smith v. Eustace

Appellate Court of Illinois

Smith v. Eustace

145 Ill. App. 261, 1908 Ill. App. LEXIS 295

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 18, 1908

DocketGen. No. 14,216

StatusPublished

This text of 145 Ill. App. 261 (Smith v. Eustace) 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

Smith v. Eustace, 145 Ill. App. 261, 1908 Ill. App. LEXIS 295 (Ill. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error which brings before the court the record of the Municipal Court of Chicago in an action of forcible detainer brought by James J. Smith, plaintiff in error, against Daniel Eustace, defendant in error, for possession of certain premises in the city of Chicago.

The evidence shows that plaintiff was the owner of the premises in question, and in October, 1902, sold by a verbal contract the property to defendant for the sum of $900, payable in instalments of $10 per month until the whole amount was paid with interest at six per cent, on the deferred payments. The defendant with his family took possession of the premises and remained in possession thereof until the action was brought for the possession. The plaintiff paid all instalments as they fell due up to September 24, 1906, and thereafter failed to make payments until demand in writing was made by plaintiff for possession. At this time $120 was due and unpaid. Defendant refused to deliver possession of the premises on demand, and thereupon the action was commenced.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the court entered judgment on the verdict.

Tn our opinion the verdict is manifestly against the clear weight of the evidence, and the trial court should have set aside the verdict and awarded a new trial.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error which brings before the court the record of the Municipal Court of Chicago in an action of forcible detainer brought by James J. Smith, plaintiff in error, against Daniel Eustace, defendant in error, for possession of certain premises in the city of Chicago.

The evidence shows that plaintiff was the owner of the premises in question, and in October, 1902, sold by a verbal contract the property to defendant for the sum of $900, payable in instalments of $10 per month until the whole amount was paid with interest at six per cent, on the deferred payments. The defendant with his family took possession of the premises and remained in possession thereof until the action was brought for the possession. The plaintiff paid all instalments as they fell due up to September 24, 1906, and thereafter failed to make payments until demand in writing was made by plaintiff for possession. At this time $120 was due and unpaid. Defendant refused to deliver possession of the premises on demand, and thereupon the action was commenced.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the court entered judgment on the verdict.

Tn our opinion the verdict is manifestly against the clear weight of the evidence, and the trial court should have set aside the verdict and awarded a new trial.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Ill. App. 261, 1908 Ill. App. LEXIS 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-eustace-illappct-1908.