Bissell v. Lloyd

• Decision Date: 26 September 1881
• Citation: 100 Ill. 214,1881 WL 10605
• Parties: ORRIN P. BISSELLv.THOMAS LLOYD et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

100 Ill. 214

1881 WL 10605 (Ill.)

ORRIN P. BISSELL

v.THOMAS LLOYD et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa Sept. 26, 1881.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Second District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. N. M. LAWS, Judge, presiding.

On the 1st of August, 1869, Bissell, being possessed of certain buildings in Peoria, leased to the firm of Billings, Lloyd & Schembs a part thereof, for a term of five years from that date, at a yearly rent of $1000, payable monthly. The premises rented were described as “the brick store room on south Washington street, * * * being the store room now occupied by the party of the first part; also, the undivided half of room in the second story of said store; also, the undivided one-half of the basement of the brick building in rear of said store.” The lessor reserved “the right of free passage through the store room during business hours,” and the lessees bound themselves “to make all repairs and alterations necessary, in and about said store room,” at their own cost. The premises were rented for keeping on sale a stock of hardware, tinware, etc. The lessee firm consisted of George Billings, George P. Lloyd and Jacob Schembs. Possession was taken under the lease, and the rent was paid by the lessees and those entering under them until March 1, 1871.

This is a bill in chancery, brought September 22, 1879, by Bissell, for the purpose of compelling Thomas Lloyd (the father of George P. Lloyd) to pay the rent claimed by him to be in arrear on that lease, for the time between the 1st of March, 1871, to August 1, 1874, or at least a portion thereof. The bill on final hearing was dismissed by the decree of the circuit court. This decree was affirmed by the Appellate Court. From that judgment of affirmance Bissell appeals to this court.

Messrs. PUTERBAUGH & PUTERBAUGH, and Mr. J. M. MORSE, for the appellant.

Messrs. COOPER & TENNERY, Messrs. JOHNSON & FOSTER, and Mr. M. M. BASSETT, for the appellee Thomas Lloyd.

Mr. JUSTICE DICKEY delivered the opinion of the Court:

We find no sufficient ground in the record to reverse this judgment. By the terms of the lease, the lessees were bound to make needed repairs and alterations in and about the store-room, which was only a part of the building. The fair implication from this express undertaking is, that the lessor undertook to keep the residue of the building in repair. The premises were not occupied by the lessees, or by any one under them, after March 1, 1871. The evidence tends to show that at that time the building leaked so badly as to render the store room in question unfit for the use for which it was rented. Upon this ground, alone, it would seem the chancellor was fully justified in dismissing the bill as against Thomas Lloyd. True, judgments were rendered against the estate of George P. Lloyd, July 3, 1872, for a portion of the rent claimed, but Thomas Lloyd was not a party to the proceedings, and he is in no manner concluded thereby.

The complainant seeks to charge Thomas Lloyd with a portion of this unpaid rent, upon the...