Aachen & Munich Fire Ins. Co. v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 25 October 1902
• Citation: 199 Ill. 367,65 N.E. 134
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: AACHEN & MUNICH FIRE INS. CO. v. CRAWFORD et al.

199 Ill. 367

65 N.E. 134

AACHEN & MUNICH FIRE INS. CO.

v.CRAWFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 25, 1902.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by Andrew Crawford and others against the Aachen & Munich Fire Insurance Company. From a judgment of the appellate court (100 Ill. App. 454) reversing a judgment for defendant, it appeals. Affirmed.

Barger & Hicks, for appellant.

W. W. Gurley, for appellees.

WILKIN, J.

J. H. Graham and Andrew Crawford brought assumpsit, for the use of H. G. Stone, on a policy of insurance made by appellant July 17, 1897, for the sum of $1,500, upon the property of the St. Joseph Hotel Company, at St. Joseph, Mich. Attached to the policy was a slip: ‘Loss, if any, payable to J. H. Graham and Andrew Crawford, as their interest may appear.’ The plea was the general issue. Afterward the death of Andrew Crawford was suggested, and the cause proceeded in the name of Graham, for the use of Stone. A trial before the court without a jury resulted in a finding and judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the appellate court for the First district, where the judgment of the circuit court was reversed, and a judgment entered for the payment of the amount of the policy and interest; a finding of the facts being incorporated in the final judgment of that court. The defense in the court below was a cancellation of the policy before the property was destroyed by fire. The policy contained the provision: ‘This policy shall be canceled at any time at the request of the insured, or by the company, by giving five days' notice of such cancellation,’ etc. The trial in the circuit court was before the court without a jury, and the only issue there tried was whether or not the policy had been canceled prior to the loss. The court, at the instance of plaintiff, among others, held the following proposition of law: ‘The court holds, as a proposition of law, that the denial by the insurance company of its liability on July 12, 1898, on the ground that the policy had been canceled, precludes said company, to the extent of the interest of Crawford and Graham, or either of them, from making any then existing defense in this suit except said alleged cancellation.’ The defendant company submitted no proposition whatever, and, on the appeal to the appellate court, assigned no cross-errors questioning the correctness of the holding of the trial court on the proposition submitted by the plaintiff. The appellate court found the facts as follows: ‘At the time of the making and delivery by the appellee of the policy sued on, to J. H. GrahamandAndrew Crawford, said Graham and Crawford each had an insurable interest in the property of the St. Joseph Hotel Company, a corporation, both as mortgages of said property and as stockholders in said corporation. As to the interest of said Graham and Crawford as stockholders in the said corporation, said policy was never canceled nor released,...