{
  "id": 3119337,
  "name": "N. H. Last, Appellee, v. William A. Brams, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Last v. Brams",
  "decision_date": "1925-07-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 29,910",
  "first_page": "82",
  "last_page": "84",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "238 Ill. App. 82"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "198 Mo. App. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1764742
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "25"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo-app/198/0018-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 5968,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.166760958162523e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4749720929675823
    },
    "sha256": "e6feaa48430ff86eb5cf7cd9a315c0d8b2ca9032d258bc32a6fd9cca94f8af50",
    "simhash": "1:16697dfd8ee9a83f",
    "word_count": 965
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:21.859488+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "N. H. Last, Appellee, v. William A. Brams, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn an action in tort to recover damages to plaintiff\u2019s automobile occasioned by its collision with defendant\u2019s automobile on December 30, 1923, at the intersection of Fullerton and Kimball avenues, Chicago, the court found defendant guilty and assessed plaintiff\u2019s damages at the sum of $88.25, and entered judgment on the finding against defendant. This appeal followed. Plaintiff has not filed any brief and argument in this Appellate Court.\nPlaintiff was driving his car east on Fullerton avenue and, as he was making a turn to the north onto Kimball avenue, defendant\u2019s car, approaching from the east on the north side of Fullerton avenue, collided with plaintiff\u2019s car, causing damage to both ears. Each of the parties claimed that the other\u2019s negligence was the cause of the accident. Defendant presented to plaintiff a written claim for $43.65 for the damage to defendant\u2019s car occasioned by the collision, and plaintiff forwarded the claim to an insurance company with which he carried liability insurance. On February 2, 1924, the insurance company, by virtue of plaintiff\u2019s insurance policy, settled defendant\u2019s said claim by paying him $43.65, and taking his written release. On April 28, 1924, plaintiff commenced the present action.\nOn the trial, defendant offered in evidence the said release but the court refused to admit it. By its terms defendant, in consideration of $43.65 paid to him, did \u201crelease and forever discharge\u201d plaintiff, \u201cof and from all claims and demands of every kind and nature * * * and particularly on account of any claims for personal injuries or damage to property arising from p,n accident which occurred on or about December 30,1923, at the intersection of Fullerton and Kimball avenues, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, caused by collision of motor cars of the said William A. Brams and H. 1ST. Last.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s counsel do not contend here that the finding and judgment are against the weight of the evidence on the questions either that defendant was guilty of negligence or plaintiff of contributory negligence, but the point is made that the judgment should be reversed because \u201cthe settling of defendant\u2019s claim was an accord and satisfaction between the parties and operated as a discharge of plaintiff\u2019s claim.\u201d We do not think that the point is well taken or that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the release in evidence, and for the reason that the release on its face does not purport to settle any claims which the plaintiff had against defendant, but only such as defendant had against plaintiff. Defendant\u2019s counsel further contend that, when the insurance company paid said sum to defendant and took the release from him, it was acting as plaintiff\u2019s agent in the transaction, and that the transaction was in effect an admission of plaintiff\u2019s negligence at the time of the accident and of his liability therefor. We cannot agree. There is \u25a0 nothing in the evidence tending to show that the insurance company was acting as plaintiff\u2019s agent in said transaction. It only appears that the insurance company, for reasons not disclosed, decided on its own account to pay defendant\u2019s claim and take his release. The policy was not introduced in evidence, and it does not appear that the insurance company had any authority, express or implied, from plaintiff to settle or compromise plaintiff\u2019s claim against defendant, or that plaintiff ever sanctioned or ratified the act of the insurance company in paying said sum to defendant and taking his release. (See Burnham v. Williams, 198 Mo. App. 18, 25.)\nThe judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBarnes, P. J., and Pitch, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Max F. Allaben, for appellant; George W. Lennon, of counsel.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "N. H. Last, Appellee, v. William A. Brams, Appellant.\nGen. No. 29,910.\n1. Accobd and satisfaction \u2014 settlement of damage claim by liability insurer as accord and satisfaction. Where the defendant, in an action to recover for damages to plaintiff\u2019s automobile in a collision with defendant\u2019s car, sent a statement of his own damage to plaintiff, which the latter forwarded to an insurance company with which he carried liability insurance, and that company paid the bill and took defendant\u2019s written release against plaintiff, such settlement did not operate as an accord and satisfaction between the parties.\n2. Releases \u2014 admissibility of release of damage in action against releasing party. In an action for damages arising out of an automobile collision in which both vehicles were damaged, a release given by defendant to the insurance carrier of plaintiff\u2019s liability on account of damage resulting from the collision was properly excluded where it did not purport to settle any claims of plaintiff against defendant but on its face was limited to defendant\u2019s claims against plaintiff.\n3. Evidence \u2014 insurer as agent of insured to malee admission in settling liability claim with third party. Where the defendant, in an action to recover for damages to plaintiff\u2019s automobile in a collision with defendant\u2019s car, sent a statement of his own damages to plaintiff, which the latter forwarded to an insurance company with which he carried liability insurance, and that company paid the bill and took defendant\u2019s written release against plaintiff, the transaction was not in effect an admission of plaintiff\u2019s negligence and of his liability for the accident by his agent, there being nothing in the evidence to show that the insurance company was plaintiff\u2019s agent, or that plaintiff ever sanctioned or ratified the act of that company in paying the money to defendant and taking his release.\nAppeal by defendant from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. James W. Gobdon, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 14, 1925.\nRehearing denied July 23, 1925.\nMax F. Allaben, for appellant; George W. Lennon, of counsel.\nNo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0082-01",
  "first_page_order": 112,
  "last_page_order": 114
}