{
  "id": 5416797,
  "name": "Mid-City Trust & Savings Bank, Defendant in Error, v. National Surety Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mid-City Trust & Savings Bank v. National Surety Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-11-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,721",
  "first_page": "6",
  "last_page": "8",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 6"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 3234,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.116798962943393e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3209972859421534
    },
    "sha256": "de2034d28242476d70ec17443deea428e36a466bdd220ac51a874a7d4fbfb01e",
    "simhash": "1:4b5240859424c84d",
    "word_count": 538
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mid-City Trust & Savings Bank, Defendant in Error, v. National Surety Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles H. Burras, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mid-City Trust & Savings Bank, Defendant in Error, v. National Surety Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,721.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Z. Uhlie, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 14, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Mid-City. Trust & Savings Bank, a corporation, plaintiff, against the National Surety Company, a corporation, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover on a bond whereby defendant agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained \u201cby reason of any act of * * * forgery\u201d by any employee covered by the bond. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nThe loss sought to be recovered was occasioned by four checks forged by an employee covered by the bond, all of which were stipulated to have been made during employment, although two were not presented and paid until later.\nCharles H. Burras, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Stipulations, \u00a7 19 \u2014what is effect of. In an action on a bond whereby defendant, a surety company, agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained \u201cby reason of any act of * * * forgery\u201d on the part of any employee covered by the bond, where two or four forged checks causing the loss sought to be recovered for were not presented and paid until after the employment ended, the dates of the checks are immaterial where it is stipulated that all were made during employment.\n2. Forgery, \u00a7 2*\u2014what constitutes. In an action on a bond where defendant, a surety company, agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained \u201cby reason of any act of * * * forgery\u201d on the part of any employee covered by the bond, checks made during employment but not presented and paid until after the employment ceases are forgeries within the meaning of the bond, if the checks are false writings, apparently capable of defrauding, and manifestly made with intent to defraud, and the act of uttering is unnecessary.\n3. Indemnity, \u00a7 24*\u2014when forged checks are admissible in evidence. In an action on a bond whereby defendant, a surety company, agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained \u201cby reason of any act of * * * forgery\u201d on the part of any employee covered by the bond, where the loss sought to be recovered for was caused by forged checks, two of which were not presented and paid until after the termination of the employment, such checks are rendered competent by a stipulation that they were made during employment, coupled with undeniable evidence of forgery.\n4. Indemnity, \u00a7 24*\u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain judgment for plaintiff. In an action on a bond whereby defendant, a surety company, agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any loss sustained \u201cby reason of any act of * . * * forgery\u201d on the part of any employee covered by the bond, where the loss was caused by forged cheeky, evidence held sufficient to sustain a judgment for plaintiff.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0006-01",
  "first_page_order": 32,
  "last_page_order": 34
}