Spear v. Haggarty

Appellate Court of Illinois

Spear v. Haggarty

168 Ill. App. 559, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 1180

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 28, 1912

DocketGen. No. 16,275

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 Ill. App. 559 (Spear v. Haggarty) 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

Spear v. Haggarty, 168 Ill. App. 559, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 1180 (Ill. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

Lee J. Spear sued J. C. Haggarty in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover the sum of $145 for rent due on a lease. In April, 1908, Haggarty signed a lease of an apartment in the building known as No. 6416 Drexel avenue, Chicago, for the period from May 1,1908, to April 30, 1909, and he moved into the premises. The lease contained the clause, “flat to be thoroughly renovated”, and the evidence shows that it was so renovated by the lessor, Spear. The lease, also, contained the provision, “in case the demised premises shall be abandoned, deserted, or vacated, and remain unoccupied five days consecutively, the lessee hereby authorizes and requests the lessor, as lessee’s agent, to re-enter the demised premises, * * * and proceed to re-rent the premises, at the lessor’s option and discretion, and apply all money so received * * * toward the rent accruing under this indenture”. In August, 1908, Haggarty moved out of, and abandoned, the premises, surrendering the keys. He made no effort to secure another tenant for the balance of the term. Later in the year, Spear leased the abandoned premises to a third party, who paid some money for rent to Spear, and who moved out in February, 1909. Spear did not procure another tenant prior to April 30, 1909, — the time of the expiration of the Haggarty lease. The sum of $145 is the balance due for rent from Haggarty for the entire term, less the sums received by Spear from said third party.

On the trial, at the conclusion of all the evidence, the court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of Spear, in the sum of $145, which was done, and judgment was entered upon the verdict.

We are of the opinion that the court did not err in directing said verdict. (Humiston, Keeling & Co. v. Wheeler, 175 Ill. 514; West Side, etc. Co. v. Connecticut, etc. Co., 186 Ill. 156.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

Lee J. Spear sued J. C. Haggarty in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover the sum of $145 for rent due on a lease. In April, 1908, Haggarty signed a lease of an apartment in the building known as No. 6416 Drexel avenue, Chicago, for the period from May 1,1908, to April 30, 1909, and he moved into the premises. The lease contained the clause, “flat to be thoroughly renovated”, and the evidence shows that it was so renovated by the lessor, Spear. The lease, also, contained the provision, “in case the demised premises shall be abandoned, deserted, or vacated, and remain unoccupied five days consecutively, the lessee hereby authorizes and requests the lessor, as lessee’s agent, to re-enter the demised premises, * * * and proceed to re-rent the premises, at the lessor’s option and discretion, and apply all money so received * * * toward the rent accruing under this indenture”. In August, 1908, Haggarty moved out of, and abandoned, the premises, surrendering the keys. He made no effort to secure another tenant for the balance of the term. Later in the year, Spear leased the abandoned premises to a third party, who paid some money for rent to Spear, and who moved out in February, 1909. Spear did not procure another tenant prior to April 30, 1909, — the time of the expiration of the Haggarty lease. The sum of $145 is the balance due for rent from Haggarty for the entire term, less the sums received by Spear from said third party.

On the trial, at the conclusion of all the evidence, the court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of Spear, in the sum of $145, which was done, and judgment was entered upon the verdict.

We are of the opinion that the court did not err in directing said verdict. (Humiston, Keeling & Co. v. Wheeler, 175 Ill. 514; West Side, etc. Co. v. Connecticut, etc. Co., 186 Ill. 156.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 Ill. App. 559, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 1180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spear-v-haggarty-illappct-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack