Scharf v. Waters
Decision Date | 24 April 1946 |
Docket Number | Gen. No. 43549. |
Citation | 66 N.E.2d 499,328 Ill.App. 525 |
Parties | SCHARF v. WATERS. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Harry M. Fisher, Judge.
Forcible detainer action by Grace M. Scharf against A. S. Waters to recover possession of a dwelling. From a summary judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Louis I. Shapiro, of Chicago, for appellant.
Rosenthal, Eldridge, King & Robin of Chicago (Herman L. Ellsworth and Douglass Pillinger, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
On May 1, 1945 Grace M. Scharf filed a verified complaint of forcible detainer in the Circuit Court of Cook County against A. S. Waters, alleging that she was entitled to the possession of the premises at 1542 Forest Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois; that the defendant unlawfully withheld possession from her; and asking judgment for possession. Defendant filed a demand for a jury trial and a verified answer, denying that plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the premises, or that he unlawfully withheld possession, and alleging that on April 7, 1942 a written lease for the premises was made by plaintiff and defendant for the period from May 1, 1942 to April 30, 1943, at a rental of $45 per month; that he took possession on or about May 1, 1942; that the lease was renewed from year to year until April 30, 1945; and that he had been in possession as a tenant ever since. On motion of plaintiff the court struck four additional paragraphs of the answer. These paragraphs sought to set up facts showing that plaintiff was not seeking to gain possession of the premises in good faith, in accordance with the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and the regulation pertaining thereto. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by her affidavit, which reads:
Attached to the affidavit was a copy of the lease dated April 7, 1942, between plaintiff as lessor and defendant as lessee, demising the premises at a rental of $45 per month for the period from May 1, 1942 to April 30, 1943, and containing the following typewritten provision: ‘It is agreed that in the event that the premises are sold and that the new owner desires possession that lessor can cancel this lease by giving lessee sixty days previous notice and allowing one month's rent as a consideration therefor.’
The lease contains an endorsement that it was extended to April 30, 1944. Also attached to the affidavit was a copy of the notice by plaintiff to defendant, reading:
Opposing the motion, defendant filed the following affidavit: ‘That he has a good defense on the merits to all of the plaintiff's claim. That the nature of affiant's defense is, as follows: (a) That he rented the premises, as a tenant, located at 1542 Forest Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois from the plaintiff in accordance with the terms and provisions of a written lease, a copy of which is attached to the plaintiff's affidavit marked Exhibit A, and said lease was for the period from May 1, 1942 and expiring April 30, 1943, and said lease was extended to April 30, 1944 and has resided in said premises continuously from May 1, 1942 to date hereof as a tenant and now resides in said premises lawfully as a tenant, having complied at all times with the terms and covenants of said lease and paid all rent due, with his wife and minor son. (b) That on January 30, 1945 a Notice to Terminate Tenancy and Demand for Possession was served by the plaintiff on the defendant, whereby the plaintiff terminated said tenancy as of April 30, 1945, a copy of which notice is attached to plaintiff's affidavit filed herein, and said notice also states that plaintiff desires to recover possession of the premises for immediate use and occupancy as a dwelling for herself. (c) That the premises involved herein have been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (Act of Congress) as defense rental area and said Administrator of the Office of Price Administration in accordance with the said Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 has issued a declaration declaring rents frozen as of March 1, 1942 and said maximum rent became effective on and after July 1, 1942 and said premises have continued to be designated as a defense rental area and is now designated as a defense rental area and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Federal Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and the regulations pertaining thereto. (d) That the pertinent provisions of Regulation 28 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, and its amendments, issued by the Office of Price Administration, are as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Bauman
...Whether someone has acted in "good faith" thus depends on the context and circumstances of each case. Scharf v. Waters, 328 Ill. App. 525, 544, 66 N.E.2d 499, 507 (1st Dist. 1946) (stating that "good faith . . . depends on many circumstances and conditions"); see also In re Canniff, 498 B.R......
-
Scottish & York Intern. Ins. Group/Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Comet Cas. Co.
...58 Ill.App.3d 1053, 16 Ill.Dec. 424, 374 N.E.2d 1302; Watkins v. Lewis (1968), 96 Ill.App.2d 182, 237 N.E.2d 830; Scharf v. Waters (1946), 328 Ill.App. 525, 66 N.E.2d 499. While we do not quarrel with the trial court's holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact present, we d......
-
Douglas v. Citizens Bank of Jonesboro
...Co., 317 F.2d 850 (7th Cir.1963); United States v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 337 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1964); Scharf v. Waters, 328 Ill.App. 525, 66 N.E.2d 499 (1946); Baum v. Martin, 335 Ill.App. 277, 81 N.E.2d 757 (1948); Republic Chemical Corp. v. United Sterling Corp., 205 Misc. 730, 118......
-
Federal Ins. Co. v. Maritime Shipping Agencies, Inc.
...present any authority which states that an affidavit may be contested only by written motion. Defendants cite Scharf v. Waters (1st Dist.1946), 328 Ill.App. 525, 66 N.E.2d 499, and Baum v. Martin (2nd Dist.1948), 335 Ill.App. 277, 81 N.E.2d 757, in support of this proposition. In both of th......