Schneider v. Autoist Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 20829.,20829. |
| Citation | 178 N.E. 466,346 Ill. 137 |
| Parties | SCHNEIDER v. AUTOIST MUT. INS. CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to First Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Oscar Hebel, Judge.
Action of attachment by Frederick Schneider against Reuben Allen, in which the Autoist Mutual Insurance Company was served as garnishee. Defendant defaulted, and plaintiff recovered judgment against the garnishee. To review a judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment against the garnishee (259 Ill. App. 543), plaintiff brings certiorari.
Judgment of Appellate Court affirmed.Eugene P. Kealy and McKenna & Harris, all of Chicago (Abraham W. Brussell, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Joseph H. Hinshaw, of Chicago (Oswell G. Treadway, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
This cause is here on certiorari to the Appellate Court for the First district.
Plaintiff in error, Frederick Schneider, brought this action of attachment in the superior court of Cook county on a judgment rendered in his favor by a New York court against the defendant Reuben Allen. Defendant in error, the Autoist Mutual Insurance Company, a corporation, was served as garnishee. Allen, served by publication, was defaulted, and the trial was between plaintiff and the garnishee;the question being whether the garnishee was indebted to allen. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and there was a finding and judgment for $5,000 in plaintiff's favor against the garnishee. It appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District, where the judgment of the superior court of Cook county was reversed, with a finding of fact that Allen had relieved the garnishee of liability on the policy, that he could not recover on it, and that therefore plaintiff could not recover against the garnishee.
The record discloses that the garnishee was an Illinois corporation, and had no place of business or agents in the state of New York; that the defendant, Reuben Allen, was living in New York City and wrote the garnishee at Chicago in reference to liability insurance on his automobile, which he was using in New York. On August 22, 1923, the garnishee issued in Chicago its liability policy insuring Allen against liability for accidents. The policy was mailed from Chicago to Allen in New York, and contained the usual provisions and conditions of such policies. While the policy was in force, Allen, in driving his automobile in New York, injured the plaintiff, Schneider, who brought suit there against Allen, and Allen notified the insurance company. It took charge of the defense, and filed Allen's appearance and answer. Some time after the accident, Allen went to Buffalo, N. Y., and counsel for the insurance company went there to see him concerning the case. Allen stated that he had no witnesses who would testify concerning the accident but himself, and he further stated that he would not return to New York City, where the case was pending, when it should be reached for trial, giving as his reason that he had been arrested in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
...condition in the policy requiring cooperation on the part of the insured is one of great importance (Schneider v. Autoist Mutual Insurance Co. (1931), 346 Ill. 137, 139, 178 N.E. 466), and its purpose should be observed (M.F.A. Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cheek (1977), 66 Ill.2d 492, 496, 6 Ill......
-
EMPLOYERS REINS. v. E. Miller Ins. Agency
..."Any condition in the policy requiring cooperation on the part of the insured is one of great importance (Schneider v. Autoist Mutual Insurance Co. (1931), 346 Ill. 137, 139 ), and its purpose should be observed (M.F.A. Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cheek (1977), 66 Ill.2d 492, 496, 6 Ill.Dec. 86......
-
Apex Mut. Ins. Co. v. Christner
...of counsel if he had chosen to do so. Hawkeye Casualty Co. v. Stoker, 154 Neb. 466, 48 N.W.2d 623. Also see Schneider v. Autoist Mutual Insurance Co., 346 Ill. 137, 178 N.E. 466. Whether, in reserving rights, the insurer also avoids the strictures of collateral estoppel is, however, unsettl......
-
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. Gregorie, 738
...v. Aetna Ins. Co., 309 A.2d 306, 308 (D.C.App.1973) (whether testimony was "vital to the defense"); Schneider v. Autoist Mut. Ins. Co. 346 Ill. 137, 178 N.E. 466, 467-68 (1931) (since insured driver was only witness for the defense who knew about the accident, his refusal to attend trial re......