{
  "id": 3018408,
  "name": "Edward F. Lyons, trading as Auto Tire Sales Company, Appellant, v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lyons v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-05-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,557",
  "first_page": "280",
  "last_page": "281",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 280"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2241,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "sha256": "1a1c39d975aef193117f678630705608c7c7d414b7d172d3a4e7a73b6a2e8e97",
    "simhash": "1:4b756d3d78076334",
    "word_count": 367
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward F. Lyons, trading as Auto Tire Sales Company, Appellant, v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Litzinger, Healy & Reid, for appellant.",
      "Zimmerman, Garrett & Rundall, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward F. Lyons, trading as Auto Tire Sales Company, Appellant, v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Appellee.\nGen. No. 23,557.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Insurance, \u00a7 131 \u2014 what merchandise not covered \"by burglary policy. A burglary insurance policy on merchandise located on the main floor of a building at certain numbers on a specified street cannot be extended so as to make it cover merchandise contained in a shed to which no reference is made in the policy.\n2. Insurance \u2014 when shown not to be intention to cover property on other than described premises by burglary policy. In an action on a burglary insurance policy to recover for the loss of merchandise in a shed not connected with the described premises and located in the rear of a lot on another street, where it appeared that prior to the loss plaintiff had a conversation with the agent of defendant concerning insurance on the merchandise contained in the shed, and, after this conversation, such agent, who also represented the fire insurance company that had issued fire policies on the merchandise in the store, found, upon investigation, that the shed should have been described differently than it was described and the fire policy changed so as to cover the merchandise in the shed as well, hut no change was made in the burglary policy, evidence TieW sufficient to show that the merchandise contained in the shed was not intended to be and was not included in the burglary policy.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 14, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Edward F. Lyons, trading as Auto Tire Sales Company, plaintiff, against United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, defendant, on a burglary insurance policy, for the value of merchandise stolen from premises occupied by plaintiff. From a judgment of nil capiat, plaintiff appeals.\nLitzinger, Healy & Reid, for appellant.\nZimmerman, Garrett & Rundall, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0280-01",
  "first_page_order": 334,
  "last_page_order": 335
}
