Case ID: ill-app_185/html/0113-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carl Strum, Appellee, v. J. M. Berry and L. C. Berry, Appellants.
    Gen. No. 18,458.
    (Not to foe reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Landlord and tenant, § 279
      
      -—when interference with enjoyment of premises does not relieve from paying rent. Where acts of the landlord tend merely to diminish the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, the tenant is still bound for the rent if he continues to occupy the same, although he might show as a matter of defense in a suit for rent how much such beneficial enjoyment was diminished by the act of the landlord and recoup for whatever damages he may be able to show he had sustained through the wrongful act of his landlord.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Kick-ham: Scanlan, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the March term, 1912.
    Reversed and remanded with directions.
    Opinion filed February 2, 1914.
    
      Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by Carl Strum against J. M. Berry and L. C. Berry alleging eviction and praying that defendants be restrained from interfering with complainant’s possession of certain premises occupied by him under a lease from the defendants, and- also that they be restrained from instituting any suit against complainant for rent or possession and from shutting off motor power to the premises. From a decree in favor of the complainant, defendants appeal.
    Miller, Gorham & Wales, for appellants.
    Henry & Robinson, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI.to XV, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, VoIs. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Landloed and tenant, § 264 —when changing access to premises does not constitute eviction. A manufacturer of brooms leased the second floor of a building. By agreement a trapdoor between the first and second floor was to be used by the tenant in receiving his supplies and a chute from a canopy on the outside of the building was to be used in loading wagons. Subsequently the landlord provided a hoist on the outside of the building to enable the tenant to receive his supplies and extended the chute after taking away the canopy. Held that the changes made by the landlord did not constitute an eviction so as to relieve the tenant from paying rent, it appearing that he was dispossessed of no part of the second floor of the building and that the changes made were not to the tenant’s disadvantage.

3. Judgment, § 508 —when not res adjudicata on question of eviction. A judgment in favor of a tenant in an action against him for possession and rent in which he pleaded a partial eviction is not res adjudicata on question of eviction where it does not appear from the record of the case but that it was based on some other ground, and the facts alleged to constitute the eviction are not the same as when the judgment was rendered.