Case ID: ill-app_204/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Taylor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. & M. Stafford and G. C. & E. M. Stamm, Defendants in Error, v. Frances H. Ward, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,745.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 28, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Judgment by confession taken by H. & M. Stafford and G. C. & E. M. Stamm, plaintiffs, against Frances H. Ward, defendant, upon a cognovit in a written lease for one hundred and thirty dollars and costs. From denial of a motion by defendant to vacate the judgment and for leave to plead, defendant brings error.
    Fulton, Garey & Beutschman, for plaintiff in error.
    Fred J. Crowley, for defendants in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Landlord and tenant, § 50
      
      —when parol evidence inadmissible to vary terms of written lease. On motion to vacate a judgment by confession taken on a cognovit in a lease, where one affidavit in support of such motion set up that the lease was made upon an oral agreement that the lessee should have an additional room, besides those specified in the lease, for a maid in the same building for the same term as that in the lease, two years, and a second affidavit set up that there was a mutual agreement and understanding that the premises leased Were to consist of the rooms specified in the lease and the additional room referred to, what constituted such mutual agreement and understanding, whether the lease or some oral contract, not being stated, held that such defense appeared to be an attempt to vary the terms of a written lease by parol and as such would be inadmissible.
    2. Frauds, Statute op, § 41*—when oral lease within. Where a written lease of specified premises is made for a term of two years and an oral lease of an additional room for a similar period, such latter agreement is within the Statute of Frauds.
    3. Landlord and tenant, § 264*—what does not constitute eviction from leased premises. On motion to vacate a judgment by confession taken on a cognovit in a lease of a certain apartment, where the affidavit in support of such motion set up as a defense to the action an eviction from a certain room claimed to have been included, but not specified in the lease by a collateral oral agreement between the parties, held that such eviction would not be an eviction from the leased premises.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.