Galloway v. Weber, 55 Ill. App. 366 (1894)

Nov. 12, 1894 · Illinois Appellate Court

55 Ill. App. 366

James B. Galloway v. Nicholas J. Weber and Anton Jankowski, Copartners as Weber & Jankowski.

1. New Trials—Amount in Controversy.—The amount in controversy is immaterial when the law justifies the granting of a new trial.

Memorandum.—Assumpsit. In the Circuit Court of Cook County, on appeal from a justice of the peace; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Trial by j ury; verdict for plaintiff; appeal by plaintiff. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed November 12, 1894.

Statement of the Case.

James B. Galloway, the appellant, and plaintiff below, leased to appellees, Weber & Jankowski, a part of the premises known as 75 East North avenue, in the city of Chicago, by a written lease, running from April 1,1892, to April 30, 1893, at a monthly rental of $30, payable in advance, together with one-third of the total water taxes levied upon said premises.

Appellees retained possession.after the expiration of this written lease, until the end of January, 1894, paying a monthly rental of $35, from May 1, 1893, to January 1, 1894, and one-third of the water taxes to November 1,1893.

Appellant signed and sent to appellees in May, 1893, duplicate copies of a new lease from May 1, 1893, to April 30, 1894, at $35 a month. They did not sign the new lease, but retained possession of both copies.

At the time this suit was begun in the justice court there was due rent for January and February, 1894, and one-third of the water taxes levied upon said premises and paid by appellant from November 1,1893, to May 1,1894; the whole amounting to $75.81.

At the trial of the case in the Circuit Court the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $37.90. A motion by plaintiff to set aside the verdict and for a new trial was overruled, and he appeals.

Adolph Teaub, attorney for appellant.

Mr. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant sued the appellee for rent; $75.81 was due him, and the jury. gave him $37.90. On motion for new trial the court said that the difference was too small to justify another trial, and it would cost the county more for another trial than the difference amounted to.

We agree to the last, but not to the first proposition. The appellee does not appear here to defend the judgment, and we can not justify it.

In McNutt v. Dickson, 42 Ill. 492, the Supreme Court found it laborious to apply de minimis to $9.70 of a decree of $2,441 acquiesced in more than five years.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.