Hayner v. Smith

Citations

• 63 Ill. 430

Syllabus

<p>1. Parties—married women—whether should sue alone. Since the act of 1861, in a suit to recover rent under a lease executed by a married woman on her own separate property, it is error to join her husband as plaintiff in the action.</p> <p>3. Landlord and tenant—of an motion of the latter by the former from a portion of the demised premises—whether will release the tenant from the payment of rent. Where a lessee is, by his lessor, wrongfully evicted from a portion of the demised premises, he is thereby excused from the payment of any of the rent, although he remains in possession of the remaining portion of the premises to the end of the term.</p> <p>3. But, to constitute an eviction, there must be more than a mere trespass by the landlord. There must be something of a grave and permanent character done by the landlord with the intention of depriving the tenant of the enjoyment of the premises—the question of eviction or no eviction depending upon the circumstances, and being a matter for the jury to decide.</p> <p>4. Some acts of interference by the landlord with the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises may be mere acts of trespass, or may amount to an eviction, the question whether they partake of the latter character depending upon the intention with which they are done—if clearly indicating an intention on the landlord’s part that the tenant should no longer continue to hold the premises, they would constitute an eviction.</p>