Lynch v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 30 September 1873
• Citation: 1873 WL 8438,69 Ill. 210
• Parties: JOHN LYNCHv.NEHEMIAH A. BALDWIN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

69 Ill. 210

1873 WL 8438 (Ill.)

JOHN LYNCH

v.NEHEMIAH A. BALDWIN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1873.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora; the Hon. RICHARD G. MONTONY, Judge, presiding.

Mr. S. W. BROWN, and Mr. A. J. HOPKINS, for the appellant.

Mr. B. F. PARKS, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellant, as landlord, issued a distress warrant against appellee, as his tenant. The bailiff made a return to the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora, and a summons was duly issued returnable to the March term, 1873, of that court. The amount claimed to be due was $350, for the rent of a house and lot in the city. The property distrained consisted of a general assortment of groceries, show cases, stoves, etc. The plea of the general issue was filed, and a stipulation that all defenses might be introduced under it that could be made in such a proceeding. On the trial, the jury found a verdict for the defendant, and, after overruling a motion for a new trial, a judgment was rendered in his favor. The defense interposed was, that appellant, after leasing the premises to appellee, put a water-pipe through one corner of the store, about one foot from the walls, and put in a pump and sink in the upper room, which he had rented appellee. He claims that this was done without his knowledge or consent. Appellee kept an oyster saloon and eating house immediately under the room in which the sink and pump were placed, and it is claimed that the water leaked through and injured the room below.

It was also claimed that, at the time of renting, a water-closet and well were on adjoining premises, and appellee had authority to use them, but appellant failing to pay for their use, appellee was prevented from using them. There was evidence tending to sustain the defense, and upon which the jury found for defendant; and the question before the jury was, whether these acts, if true, amounted to an eviction. They were not urged to obtain a recoupment of damages inflicted by the landlord on the tenant. It is claimed that, as the landlord had leased both the upper and lower rooms to appellee, and had thus entered upon his possession, and had thereby inflicted a substantial injury, it operated as an eviction; and being thus evicted, he was not liable to pay rent.

This question has been before us in several cases, but the last, and in which the authorities were reviewed, and a rule deduced from them, is Hayner v. Smith, 63 Ill. 430. In that case it was held, that, “if the tenant loses the benefit of the enjoyment of any portion of the demised premises by the act of the landlord, the rent is thereby suspended. The term ‘eviction’ is now popularly applied to every class of expulsion or amotion. That it might be taken to mean...