Sackim v. Krimsky, 210 Ill. App. 381 (1918)

April 29, 1918 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 23,771
210 Ill. App. 381
Abe Sackim, Appellee, v. Emil J. Krimsky, Appellant

Abe Sackim, Appellee, v. Emil J. Krimsky, Appellant.

Gen. No. 23,771.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Nels A. Larson, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 29, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Abe Sackim, plaintiff, against Emil J. Krimsky, defendant, to recover on a guaranty for the payment of rent and performance of the covenants of a lease. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

M. E. Gtallioh, for appellant.

Howe & Levy, for appellee.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

*382Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and ebbob, § 1752*—when judgment affirmed for insufficiency of abstract. An affirmance of a judgment id warranted where appellant’s abstract fails ■ to show what was the judgment complained of.

2. Appeal and ebbob, § 1287*—when presumed that defense was inadequate. Where the abstract is silent as to an affidavit of merits, on appeal from a judgment against defendant, the presumption is in favor of the judgment and that the defense was inadequate.

3. Landlord and tenant, § 72 * —when lease construed as providing for payment of rent in monthly instalments. Where a lease, after naming the sum payable for the entire term, proceeds: “Payable as follows: One Hundred ($100) dollars on the 15th day of October, 1916, and .............. ($......) on the 15th day of each and every succeeding month of the term,” it is to be interpreted as meaning that $100 shall be paid on account of rent on the 15th day of each month during the term, and the objection that this construction might operate to compel the payment eventually of $50 more than the sum payable for the entire term is of no force where plaintiff’s brief disclaims any intention of demanding more than the total sum specified, and admits that plaintiff would have no such right.