{
  "id": 2596002,
  "name": "Clinton Mutual County Fire Ins. Co. v. Jacob Zeigler",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clinton Mutual County Fire Ins. v. Zeigler",
  "decision_date": "1902-04-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "165",
  "last_page": "166",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 Ill. App. 165"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5258911
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/84/0442-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 3058,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.521139842515915
    },
    "sha256": "d153319b98901ffe6318aa6326162ce39de01bebed58734f7a9cb9d968cc99ac",
    "simhash": "1:9b4c42e8abafeddf",
    "word_count": 525
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:26.777914+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Clinton Mutual County Fire Ins. Co. v. Jacob Zeigler."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Haricer\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a suit in equity, brought by appellee to reform an ambiguity in a fire insurance policy and to declare the intent and meaning of the same. It was before this court at the May term, 1899, at which time a decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill for want of equity was reversed. (Ziegler v. Clinton Mutual County Fire Ins. Co., 84 Ill. App. 442.) After being remanded, another hearing was had resulting in a decree in favor of appellee. The policy covers two barns and the contents of one barn, but does not state in which barn the contents insured were contained. One of the barns was an old one and the other a new one. The \u201c contents \u201d had been kept in the old barn, but had been removed to the new barn when the policy was issued. They remained there until a fire totally destroyed them and the barn in which they were contained. Appellant adjusted and paid the loss for the barn, but refused to pay for the loss of the \u201c contents,\u201d upon the ground that the policy did not cover them. The \u201c contents,\u201d consisted of sleigh, saddles, harness, ropes, pulleys, hay and grain, and it is clear that appellee, when he applied for the policy in question, intended to have them insured as contained in the new barn. He entertained no doubt that they had been so insured until after the fire, when some question to the contrary was raised by appellant\u2019s officers.\nThe old barn did not contain the \u201c contents \u201d but was practically empty. It is not reasonable, that the parties intended insurance upon property that had no existence, which would be the effect of a holding that the policy meant the \u201c contents \u201d of the old barn.\nAppellant places great stress upon the proof of declarations made by appellee after the fire to the effect that he had been careless in his application and had not procured insurance on the \u201c contents\u201d when he thought he had. He fully explains those declarations. They were based upon the opinion and assurance of appellant\u2019s officers that the policy did not cover the \u201c contents \u201d destroyed. Declarations made under the pressure of the \u201cconvincing arguments \u201d of appellant\u2019s officers ought to weigh but little as against a manifest intention to have the property insured. The decree is right and will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Haricer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Warner & Lemon, attorneys for appellant.",
      "George K. Ingham, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clinton Mutual County Fire Ins. Co. v. Jacob Zeigler.\n1. Construction of Contracts\u2014Ambiguities in Insurance Policies. \u2014In construing a contract of insurance, declarations of the insured after a loss to the effect that he had been \u201c careless in his application and had not procured insurance on the contents of a building when he thought he had,\u201d ought to weigh but little as against a manifest intention to have the property in question insured.\nBill to Construe a Contract of Insurance.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of DeWitt County; the Hon. William Gr. Cochran, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1901.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 9, 1902.\nWarner & Lemon, attorneys for appellant.\nGeorge K. Ingham, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0165-01",
  "first_page_order": 191,
  "last_page_order": 192
}