Case ID: ill-app_195/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Holdom", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

United States Brewing Company of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Joe Pochek, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,123.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry P. Dolan, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed November 15, 1915.
    
      Certorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
    Statement of the Case.
    Action, of forcible detainer by the United States Brewing Company of Chicago, a corporation, plaintiff, against Joe Pochek, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for possession, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Forcible entry and detainer, § 24
      
      —what not a defense. In an action of forcible detainer, a tenant cannot defend by denying or attacking his landlord’s title, nor can he show that such title has terminated, for the reason that the action is possessory solely, and is a summary statutory action for the restoration of the possession of land to one who has wrongfully been kept out or deprived of such possession, and for the further reason that in such action the question of title cannot be tried.
    2. Forcible entry and detainer, § 108
      
      —when attempt to recover personalty disregarded. Personal property cannot he made the subject of an action of forcible detainer, but where a complaint in such an action seeks to recover for personal property as well as the possession of real estate, such portion of the complaint will be treated as surplusage where that phase of the case was not presented to the trial court, and where the judgment sought to be reversed is for the possession of land and not for that of the personal property described by the complaint as being in and on the demised premises.
    Thomas J. Lynch and Rudolph Frankenstein, for plaintiff in error.
    Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.