Kane v. Dunn

2 Citing cases

  1. Bradford Hotel Operating Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    26 T.C. 454 (U.S.T.C. 1956)

    Petitioner cites no case where it was ever held a landlord was entitled to retain a nondefaulting tenant's deposit as against the tenant's claim for its return made after the lease was terminated. It is the well-established rule of landlord and tenant law that a deposit made by the tenant as security for promised performance of the covenants of a lease can be retained by the landlord only as long as the relationship of landlord and tenant continues. Sutton v. Goodman, 194 Mass. 389, 80 N.E. 608; Fields Holding Co. v. Chanbrook Realty Co., 285 N.Y.S. 182; Kane v. Dunn, 118 N.E. 2d 66 (Ill.); Berghoff v. Koblitz, 258 P.2d 1059 (Calif.)

  2. Auker v. Gerold

    214 N.E.2d 618 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966)   Cited 1 times

    But as earlier suggested, we are moved to allow a refund by other considerations. In Kane v. Dunn, 2 Ill. App.2d 50, 118 N.E.2d 66, the court found evidence of a mutual agreement to "cancel the lease" and to relet the premises. [4] The present lease provided that "either party" might cancel the lease in the event of sixty percent destruction by fire.