{
  "id": 2854030,
  "name": "National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America, Appellee, v. The Title Guaranty & Surety Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "National Life Insurance Co. of the United States of America v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,880",
  "first_page": "221",
  "last_page": "223",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 221"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 5138,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "b92db4b8b7a59544dfc8a087afc20a2f3383eab2f78ccf107cb966f5589763f0",
    "simhash": "1:cf465316302ffe59",
    "word_count": 852
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America, Appellee, v. The Title Guaranty & Surety Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sheriff, Dent, Dobyns & Freeman, for appellant.",
      "L. A. Stebbins, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America, Appellee, v. The Title Guaranty & Surety Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,880.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Jr., Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 5, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America against The Title Guaranty and Surety Company upon a fidelity bond in which defendant agreed to reimburse plaintiff for \u201call loss directly occasioned by larceny or embezzlement\u201d on the part of one Burt H. Hopkins, a general agent of plaintiff, in connection with the duties of his office or position \u201cas the same have been stated in writing by the employer to the company.\u201d Defendant contended that the loss claimed by plaintiff, if, occasioned by larceny or embezzlement on the part of Hopkins, did not arise \u201cin connection with the duties of his office or position;\u201d that Hopkins \u2019 duties as general agent were specifically defined in a contract entered into before the execution of the bond in suit, his duties as so defined not including the collection of premiums other than \u201cfirst year\u2019s premiums,\u201d and that the only loss proved was the amount of renewal premiums which Hopkins collected and failed to turn over to defendant. At the time of the application for the bond plaintiff was required to answer a list of questions, among which were the following:\n\u201c4 (a) How long have you known the applicant? About two months, (e) How long has he been in your employ? Contract dated 6-15-1910.\n6 (a) What will be the title of applicant\u2019s position? General Agent, (b) Explain fully his duties in connection therewith. Collecting premiums, appointing agents and soliciting. \u2019 \u2019\nIt was stipulated that \u201cthe above answers are to be taken as conditions precedent and as a basis of the said bond applied for. \u2019 \u2019 Hopkins was permitted to collect premiums other than first year\u2019s premiums, and there was evidence to the effect this was done in pursuance of an oral agreement entered into after the execution of the written contract, but there was no evidence that defendant had knowledge of the provisions of the written contract at the time of the execution of the bond. The written contract referred to contained the following provisions:\n\u201cThe General Agent shall not receive any moneys due or to become due to the Company unless authorized in writing, or in exchange for conditional receipts to be furnished by the Company, or on policies or renewal receipts signed by the President, Vice-President or Secretary, sent to Mm for collection.\u201d\nFrom a judgment for plaintiff for $2,258.41, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Indemnity, \u00a7 11 \u2014when defalcation arises in performance of duties of office. In an action on a fidelity bond given to protect an insurance company against embezzlement by its general agent, the contract between the agent and his employer was construed as authorizing the former to collect renewal premiums, and the embezzlement of same accordingly arose \u201cin connection with the duties of his office or position\u201d as required by the terms of the bond.\n2. Indemnity, \u00a7 11 \u2014when defalcation with felonious intent. Where the officers of an insurance company on declaring the accounts of a general agent discovered a shortage, which was admitted by the agent, who stated that the amount of the admitted shortage covered all collections up to the time of the examination, whereas the actual collections were two thousand dollars in excess of that amount, it was held, that a felonious intent on the part of the agent was shown, within a fidelity policy protecting the company against larceny or embezzlement on the part of the company.\n3. Indemnity, \u00a7 12 \u2014what not an extension of time of defaulter. In an action on a fidelity bond, a finding that plaintiff had not given an employe, guilty of embezzlement, an extension of the time within which to pay the amount of his defalcation was held to be sustained by the evidence, the employe having given plaintiff a chattel mortgage which fixed no time for payment, no consideration therefor having been shown, and the testimony of the employe\u2019s wife that she refused to sign the mortgage until plaintiff\u2019s agent promised that six months\u2019 time would be allowed for payment being denied by the agent.\n4. Indemnity, \u00a7 12 \u2014when duties of employe not increased. In an action on a fidelity bond given to protect an insurance company against defalcation by a general agent, it was held that an oral contract subsequent to the written contract of employment did not operate to increase the agent\u2019s duties without the consent of the surety company, because he was thereby permitted to collect other than first year\u2019s premiums, the original contract being construed as giving him that authority.\nSheriff, Dent, Dobyns & Freeman, for appellant.\nL. A. Stebbins, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0221-01",
  "first_page_order": 247,
  "last_page_order": 249
}