{
  "id": 2651601,
  "name": "Randolph Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Julius Lorenz, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Randolph Mutual Insurance v. Lorenz",
  "decision_date": "1909-03-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "154",
  "last_page": "155",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 Ill. App. 154"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 129,
    "char_count": 1603,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.501,
    "sha256": "b7ae2316e1964962fa13623dc4bdeb2b83e0237de3b551b8dff3e43f1a2eb8d0",
    "simhash": "1:9bc7f0bdda5d359c",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:17.407031+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Randolph Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Julius Lorenz, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a suit commenced before a justice of the peace of Randolph county, by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, to recover on a fire insurance policy. From the judgment rendered by the justice the case was appealed to the Circuit Court, where it was tried de novo, resulting in a finding and judgment in favor of defendant in error for the sum of $100.\nThe evidence in this case conclusively proves that defendant in error did not, at the time the policy was issued, nor at any time thereafter, \u201chave any right, enjoyment, profit, interest, lien, expectance or other benefit growing' out of, or depending upon, \u2019 \u2019 the building, property or premises claimed to have been insured\u2014he had no insurable interest in it.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the court finds as an ultimate fact to be incorporated in the judgment, that defendant in error had no insurable interest in the building, property or premises insured. Reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. Clay Horner, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ralph E. Sprigg, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Randolph Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Julius Lorenz, Defendant in Error.\nInsurance\u2014when recovery will not 6e sustained. In order to recover upon policies of fire insurance it must appear that the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the premises ifi question.\nAction commenced before justice of the peace. Error to the Circuit Court of Randolph county; the Hon. Charles T. Moore, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1908.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed March 4, 1909.\nH. Clay Horner, for plaintiff in error.\nRalph E. Sprigg, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0154-01",
  "first_page_order": 172,
  "last_page_order": 173
}