{
  "id": 2626952,
  "name": "Bridget Sweeney, Defendant in Error, v. Life Association of America, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sweeney v. Life Ass'n of America",
  "decision_date": "1909-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,699",
  "first_page": "173",
  "last_page": "177",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 Ill. App. 173"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 385,
    "char_count": 7619,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.501,
    "sha256": "0c91c84ead4e623d86816dde4f00a2290c3c16af1a238ec4aa3b8b34c6f9f7a7",
    "simhash": "1:174ae65d99e9683f",
    "word_count": 1288
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:41.765695+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bridget Sweeney, Defendant in Error, v. Life Association of America, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Mack\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action on a policy of life insurance for $1,000 issued on the life of the plaintiff\u2019s husband.\nThe defense was based first on an alleged breach of warranty in a misstatement (a) as to the occupation of the insured; (b) as to his recent loss of weight; and (c) as to his being postponed or declined by any other life insurance company; second, on a rescission of the contract after the death of the insured, because of such misrepresentation.\nThe facts in support of the defense were as follows: The application for the policy was made on March 25, 1907. The insured died July 1, 1907, having paid two quarterly premiums.\nOn March 14, 1907, the insured made application in the Prudential Insurance Company for a policy. In the application for the policy on which this suit was brought he gave his occupation as \u201cagent and collector and attends to the real estate,\u201d and stated \u201cI have not been declined or postponed by any life company.\u201d He further answered the medical examiner as follows:\n\u201cQ. Are you now or have you been engaged in or connected with the sale or manufacture of beer, wine or other intoxicating liquors? A. Tes, owned half interest in brewery in 1894 and 1895.\n\u201cQ. If so, state full particulars thereof.\n\u201cA. Also owned two saloons, but did not run them, during same period. * * *\n\u201cQ. Have you ever made an application for life insurance upon which a policy was not issued, or, if issued, upon a different plan than the one applied for? A. Ho.\u201d\nAt the conclusion of the questions and answers was contained the following statement:\n\u201cAll the statements made to the medical examiner as well as those contained in my application are the basis and form a part of the proposed contract for insurance, subject to the charter and by-laws of the association and the laws of the State 'of New York. I hereby agree that all the foregoing statements and answers and all those that I made to the medical examiner in continuation of this application are by me warranted to be true, and are offered to the association as a consideration of the contract which I hereby agree to accept and which shall' not take effect until the first premium shall have been paid. * * *\nI certify that my answers to the foregoing questions and my statements are correctly recorded.\u201d\nAll of which was signed by the insured.\nThis latter document was not attached to or referred to in the policy itself, and no copy thereof was annexed thereto.\nThe defendant further introduced a report made by its examiner to it in which occur the following questions and answers:\n\u201c1. Name? John Sweeney. Occupation? Agent and collector. * * * 2. Has the applicant\u2019s weight recently increased? No. Or diminished? No. If so, how much and within what period?................\u201d\nThis report is not signed by the insured.' The medical examiner testified that he guessed that he had written down the substance of what the applicant had said.\nAn objection to an offer to prove that the insured had made statements contained in the medical examiner\u2019s report to the company was sustained, but the witness said, in relation to this report, that he wrote down his conclusions and the results of his examination immediately after he had examined the insured and that he based his conclusion stated in the medical examiner\u2019s report on his examination.\nThe defendant proved that in an application dated March 4, 1907, to the Prudential Insurance Company, the insured had stated his occupation to he'\u201cCollector for the Fortune Brewing Company,\u201d and that in the medical examination on March 17, 1907, in answer to the question, \u201cHas your weight changed this year?\u201d he had said that he had lost twenty-five pounds from dieting and more exercise. He had further, in connection with said examination, stated his business as collector and manager of Fortune Brewing Company\u2019s real estate.\nOn the question of occupation, defendant introduced as a witness the agent of the Prudential Insurance Company, who testified as follows:\n\u201cQ. Mr. Shaw, do you know in what business Mr. Sweeney was at the time he signed this application? A. He was business agent for the Brewers\u2019 Association of Chicago, real estate agent.\n\u201cQ. Brewers\u2019 Association? A. I think so, their real estate agent.\u201d\nWe regret to say that this testimony as abstracted omits all reference to the real estate and represents the witness as saying that Sweeney was \u201cbusiness agent of the Brewers\u2019 Association.\u201d Moreover, at page 5 of the brief of counsel it is stated that Shaw testified that Sweeney\u2019s position was that of \u201cBusiness Agent of the Brewers\u2019 Association of Chicago,\u201d the words in quotation being italicized in the brief.\nInasmuch as the entire point of occupation was the connection with the sale or manufacture of beer, this method of abstracting and referring to the testimony, avoiding the essential point that bears against the contention of counsel, is highly improper.\nWe cannot, however, find either breach of warranty or misrepresentation in the statements made by the \u2019deceased. There is no proof whatsoever that at the time of the application or prior thereto, the insured had any interest in or connection with the sale or manufacture of beer, except as therein 'stated by him.\nThe fact that he was connected with the real estate department of a brewing corporation in no sense contradicts his statements as to his occupation.\nThe only proof of loss of weight against Sweeney is his statement to the medical examiner of the Prudential Company that he had lost twenty-five pounds from dieting and exercise this year. Even if the confidential statement of a medical examiner to his company could be regarded in any sense as based upon the statements of Sweeney and as amounting to a warranty, there is nothing contradictory in the statement that his weight has not recently diminished and the statement that it diminished twenty-five pounds this year.\nCounsel urges that the phrase \u201cthis year\u201d in the question, \u201cHas your weight changed this year?\u201d asked by the Prudential Company on March 17, 1907, means the calendar year, that is, since January 1, 1907. We cannot agree with this interpretation of a printed form. \u201cThis year\u201d means one year past, and not the few months of the then calendar year.\nAt the time that he signed the application for this policy, he had not been postponed or declined by the other company; in fact, he received no notice of a declination until after the policy in suit had been issued.\nInasmuch as the court might well in this case have directed a verdict for the plaintiff, it is unnecessary to consider the instructions. Judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Mack"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel A. Harper and Thomas E. D. Bradley, for plaintiff in error.",
      "McArdle & MoArdle, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bridget Sweeney, Defendant in Error, v. Life Association of America, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 14,699.\n1. Insurance\u2014what not false statement as to occupation. To state in an application for insurance that the applicant has no interest in or connection with the sale or manufacture of beer, is not false, though the applicant is connected with the real estate department of a brewing corporation.\n2. Insurance\u2014phrase \u201cthis year\u201d construed. \u201cThis year,\u201d in the question \u201cHas your weight changed this year?\u201d contained in an application for insurance, means one year past and not the preceding months of the then calendar year.\nAssumpsit. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1908,\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1909.\nSamuel A. Harper and Thomas E. D. Bradley, for plaintiff in error.\nMcArdle & MoArdle, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0173-01",
  "first_page_order": 191,
  "last_page_order": 195
}