delivered the opinion of the court.
Carter v. Crist, 199 Ill. App. 371 (1916)
May 1, 1916
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 21,750
199 Ill. App. 371
Richard W. Carter, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. C. Crist, Defendant in Error.
Gen. No. 21,750.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Kearns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed May 1, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Richard W. Carter, plaintiff, against R. C. Crist, defendant, on the following .written instrument:
“For value received, I hereby guarantee the payment of the rent and performance of the covenants by the party of the second part in the leases made and executed on the 20th day of November, A. D. 19.14, and expiring on the 30th day of September, 1915, by and between........and Mrs. Jessie E. Brown and Miss Lotta Edwards, on the land and building known as 1511 Lawrence avenue, in the City of Chicago, Illinois.
“Witness my hand and seal this 20th day of November, A. D. 1914.
“R. C. Crist (Seal).”
The Municipal Court struck the plaintiff’s “more specific statement of claim” from the files and plaintiff electing to stand by the statement, judgment was entered for defendant, to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted.
In his “more specific statement of claim” plaintiff alleges that on the date of the instrument sued on he was the owner of a two-story building at 1511 Lawrence avenue, Chicago; that on said day he leased the first floor of said building to Jessie E. Brown and Lotta Edwards, described in said lease as party of the second part, from December 15, 1914, to the 30th day of September, 1916, for $1,027.50, payable in advance at $45 a month the first year and $50 a month the *372second year; that on said day he leased the second floor of said building as a dwelling to said Jessie E. Brown and Lotta Edwards, described as party of the second part, from the -first day of December, 1914, to the 30th. day of September, 1916, for $770, payable in advance, at $35 a month; that on said day the defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff a certain written instrument, under seal, which is the instrument sued on.
Abstract of the Decision.
Municipal Court of Chicago, § 19 * —when judgment by default :properly refused. In an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago to recover on an alleged guaranty of the performance of a lease by the lessee, the entry of a judgment by default is properly refused where the lease described in the “more specific statement of claim” filed by plaintiff is not the lease set forth in the instrument sued on.
Michael Lyons, for plaintiff in error.
M. E. Gallion, for defendant in error.