Case Name: William Billos and George Thanos, Appellees, v. Joseph F. Kozlowski, Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-04-16
Citations: 205 Ill. App. 285
Docket Number: Gen. No. 22,812
Parties: William Billos and George Thanos, Appellees, v. Joseph F. Kozlowski, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
William Billos and George Thanos, Appellees, v. Joseph F. Kozlowski, Appellant.
Gen. No. 22,812.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Damages, § 85 —when money deposited ~by tenant as security for rent not treated as liquidated damages. In an action to recover money deposited under a lease to secure the payment of rent, where the plaintiffs had been dispossessed under a judgment for possession, and the rent of one month amounting only to one-eighth of the deposit, was involved, and the issue was whether the defendant was entitled to retain the entire deposit as liquidated damages, held that to compel the forfeiture of the entire amount of the deposit for the nonpayment of a month’s rent would be unconscionable.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 16, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by William Billos and George Thanos, plaintiffs,'against Joseph T. Kozlowski, defendant, to recover money deposited as security for the payment of rent. From a judgment for $853.28 in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Beach & Beach, for appellant; Paul C. Schussman, of counsel.
W. A. Morrow, for appellees.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Damages, § 85*—what is nature oí money deposited By tenant as security for rent. Money deposited by a tenant as security for rent will, as a rule, be regarded as a penalty merely and not as liquidated damages, and it is immaterial whether the deposit is called a penalty or liquidated damages, and particularly so when the deposit is out of all proportion to the rent due.
3. Damages, § 85 —what is important in determining whether deposit is penalty or otherwise. The element of reasonableness is an important factor in determining whether or not a deposit should be considered as a penalty or otherwise,' and if the forfeiture would be unreasonable, the entire deposit should. not be applied as liquidated damages.