Waller v. Richter, 205 Ill. App. 440 (1917)

May 1, 1917 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 22,172

205 Ill. App. 440

Marie Waller, Defendant in Error, v. W. J. Richter, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,172.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Landlord and tenant, § 479*—what notice of termination of tenancy necessary t>y tenant from month to month. A landlord is entitled to thirty days’ notice from a tenant from month to month, when the latter desires to terminate his tenancy.

2. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13 ^* —when affidavit of merits is properly stricken. In an action in the Municipal Court for one month’s rent due from the defendant as a tenant from month to month, where plaintiff claimed that the tenant vacated on August 30th without giving the necessary notice, and in the affidavit of merits it was stated that notice was given during such month that the defendant would vacate the premises at the expiration of said month, held that thirty days’ notice was required on the part of such tenant to terminate his tenancy, and that the affidavit of merits was properly stricken.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jambs C. Martin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 1, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Marie Waller, plaintiff, against W. J. Richter, defendant, to recover rent for premises rented by defendant as tenant from month to month. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Henry Knaus, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Municipal Court op Chicago, § 13 ^* —when statement of claim in action for rent is sufficient. Where, in an action in the Municipal Court for rent due from the defendant, it was alleged that the claim was for rent due and unpaid for September, 1915, for premises occupied by the defendant as a tenant from month to month, and that the tenant vacated the premises on August 30, 1915, without giving the plaintiff, the landlord, necessary notice to terminate such tenancy, held that such statement of claim was sufficient to state the general nature of the cause of action and to meet the requirements of the Municipal Court Act.