{
  "id": 5405283,
  "name": "John Schultz for use of R. J. Whitlock, Appellee, v. Home Insurance Company of New York, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schultz ex rel. Whitlock v. Home Insurance Co. of New York",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,844",
  "first_page": "297",
  "last_page": "298",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 297"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2572,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2754064718346536e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6157370564847603
    },
    "sha256": "d155bb912efee511c38af897d8f6c7f69108f8f0d7994b34005b92d9f3fb21aa",
    "simhash": "1:2db073165907819c",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Schultz for use of R. J. Whitlock, Appellee, v. Home Insurance Company of New York, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, for appellant; Clyde E. Shorey and Fred Barth, of counsel.",
      "Brothers & Fairfield, for appellee; Frank M. Fairfield, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Schultz for use of R. J. Whitlock, Appellee, v. Home Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,844.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Insurance, \u00a7 86 \u2014what is nature of contract of fire insurance. A contract for fire insurance is a contract of indemnity, and the insured is not entitled to compensation when he has suffered no loss or damage.\n2. Insurance\u2014when owner is not entitled to compensation for loss of building during course of construction. In an action by the owner of a building to recover on a fire insurance policy issued upon a building in course of construction, where the owner took out insurance with defendant, and the contractor also insured the building in his own name but with another company, and a fire occurred before the completion of the building, and the appraisers for the company who had insured the building for the contractor appraised the damage, and paid the amount to the contractor, and at the same time plaintiff assigned his policy to the party for whose use the suit in question was brought, he being the agent of the company who insured the building in favor of the contractor, and the contractor repaired the damage caused by the fire and used therefor nearly all of the money received under his policy, and, upon completion of the building, the full contract price was paid to the contractor, and the owner suffered no loss through the fire and made no claim under his policy, held that the insured was not entitled to compensation, as he had suffered no loss or damage.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Newcomer, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and judgment here.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John Schultz for the use of R. J. Whit-lock, plaintiff, against the Home Insurance Company of New York, defendant, to recover on a policy of fire insurance issued to said Schultz on a building being constructed for him, and assigned by said Schultz to said R. J. Whitlock, an agent of another insurance company which settled for the loss under a policy in favor of the contractor with the latter. From a judgment for plaintiff for $798.50, defendant appeals.\nAdams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, for appellant; Clyde E. Shorey and Fred Barth, of counsel.\nBrothers & Fairfield, for appellee; Frank M. Fairfield, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0297-01",
  "first_page_order": 325,
  "last_page_order": 326
}