delivered the opinion of the court.
Conrad v. Hess, 202 Ill. App. 199 (1916)
Dec. 18, 1916
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,164
202 Ill. App. 199
M. C. Conrad, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Hess, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 22,164.
(Hot to The reported in full.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Harry C. Moran, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
Reversed and judgment here.
Opinion filed December 18, 1916.
Rehearing denied December 29, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Action by M. C. Conrad, plaintiff, against Frank Hess, defendant, before a justice of the peace for rent of a farm occupied under a written lease. From a judgment for $190 against the defendant, after trial by the court upon appeal to the Circuit Court, defendant brings error.
The lease was dated January 1, 1913, and ran for three years. By it the defendant agreed to pay $150 rental-for the first year, $200 for the second year, and $225 for the third year. He entered into possession and cultivated the farm. In the fall of 1913 he had a conversation with plaintiff concerning the rent for that year, which he had not then paid, and the defendant gave plaintiff his note for $150 in payment of the first year’s rent.
George E. Brahhah, for plaintiff in error.
*200Julius H. Gewbke and John E. Conrad, for defendant in error.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Bills and notes, § 313 * —when suit not prematurely brought on note. In an action for rent of a farm occupied under a written lease, part of the claim being based upon a note given for the rent for the first year of the term, evidence held sufficient to show that the note was due and that suit thereon was not prematurely brought.
2. Landlord and tenant, § 330*—when judgment on note in action for rent proper. In an action for rent of a farm occupied under a written lease, a judgment based in part on a past due note given for the rent for one year of the term, held proper.
3. Landlord and tenant, § 302*—when evidence sufficient to show payment of rent. In an action for rent of a farm occupied under a written lease, evidence held sufficient to show payment of the second year’s rent of the term, where it appeared that defendant had made a certain payment and that in the fall of such year plaintiff agreed with defendant that in consideration of defendant giving up immediate possession of the farm and leaving all crops on the ground for the use of the new tenant the lease would ho canceled and the balance he considered as paid in full; that defendant accordingly left his crops as they stood planted and that the new tenants who took possession used them under the direction of the landowner.