{
  "id": 5383857,
  "name": "Illinois Life Insurance Company, Defendant in Error, v. Edward T. Kennedy, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Illinois Life Insurance v. Kennedy",
  "decision_date": "1914-12-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,003",
  "first_page": "29",
  "last_page": "30",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 29"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2916,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "sha256": "e24e0447abb575bd1befb719c05cc453999b0f67af204e683c35bfd45e34f3b3",
    "simhash": "1:49fcd832b0edb976",
    "word_count": 502
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Illinois Life Insurance Company, Defendant in Error, v. Edward T. Kennedy, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Earl J. Walker, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Henry W. Price and Hugh T. Martin, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Illinois Life Insurance Company, Defendant in Error, v. Edward T. Kennedy, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,003.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Rafferty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 31, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Illinois Life Insurance Company, a corporation, against Edward T. Kennedy on a judgment note given by defendant to plaintiff for the amount of the first premium on a life insurance policy. A judgment by confession had previously been entered against the defendant, and it was afterwards opened to allow defendant to make a defense. Upon a trial before the coupt the defense failed, and judgment by confession was permitted to stand. To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Insurance, \u00a7 156 \u2014when provision in application no defense in suit on note given for premium. In an action on a promissory note given for the amount of the first premium on a life insurance policy, it cannot be claimed as a defense that there was no consideration for the note, for the reason there was a clause in the application for the policy that the insurance company should incur no liability \u201cuntil the first premium had been actually paid to and accepted by the company, or its authorized agent,\u201d where the evidence showed that the company accepted the note in payment of the premium, and that plaintiff, when he accepted the policy, signed a receipt stating that the premium had been paid.\n2. Insurance, \u00a7 328*\u2014provisions in application which may he waived. A provision in an application which provides that the insurance company shall incur no liability \u201cuntil the first premium has been paid to and accepted by the company, or its authorized agent,\u201d and until the policy has been actually delivered to and accepted by the insured, is for the benefit of the company alone and may be waived by it.\n3. Insurance, \u00a7 156*\u2014what does not constitute defense in' suit on note given for premium. The mere fact that an insurance company accepts a promissory note instead of cash in payment of the first premium does not constitute such a violation of the Act of 1891 (J. & A. If 6491), prohibiting unjust discrimination by life insurance companies between insurants of the same class, so that it may be availed of as a defense to a suit on the note, and 'this especially where there is no evidence that any discrimination was made in the instant case, even though the acceptance of the note in some cases and not in others could be held to be a discrimination.\nEarl J. Walker, for plaintiff in error.\nHenry W. Price and Hugh T. Martin, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0029-01",
  "first_page_order": 73,
  "last_page_order": 74
}