{
  "id": 5148153,
  "name": "Travellers Preferred Accident Association v. James Newell Kelsey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Travellers Preferred Accident Ass'n v. Kelsey",
  "decision_date": "1892-11-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "371",
  "last_page": "373",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 Ill. App. 371"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "133 Ill. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5426641
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/133/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 178",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4989136
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/33/0178-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 284,
    "char_count": 3407,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0576271083788435e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7561213028249909
    },
    "sha256": "4a36a71cee13dad46db751f00420d5b63ff73ac6442109c17f76dfae59e47372",
    "simhash": "1:5acb58235a62265f",
    "word_count": 562
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:05.291643+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Travellers Preferred Accident Association v. James Newell Kelsey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary.\nThe appellee was insured by the appellant against accident. The whole case depends upon the construction of two clauses in the application made by the appellee for the policy. They are:\n\u201c6. Occupation, agriculture sup\u2019t, not working machinery. The duties required of me in that occupation are supervision of farm.\n9. Are you aware that you will not be entitled to indemnity for injuries sustained in any employment more hazardo\u00fas than that under which you are insured, unless a notification of said change is sent to the secretary in writing? Tes.\n(Signed)\nJames \u00a1Newell Kelsey.\u201d\nThe case was tried by the court without a jury, and the facts which the evidence tended to prove and justified the court t.o find are, that clause 6 was true when signed; that in Michigan there is an annual State. Fair, which, including the work of preparation and closing up, lasts about four or five days each year; that for several years the appellee had been one of the assistant marshals at the fair, without other compensation than the payment of his expenses; that in 1889, when he was injured, he was in name \u201c superintendent of police,\u201d wearing a badge and bearing that title, and having his office at a building on the fair grounds called \u201cpolice headquarters,\u2019 but having no authority derived from the State; that a \u201cWild West Show Cowboy,\u201d who exhibited by shooting glass balls with bird shot, had by accident or carelessness shot some people, was arrested and brought before the city marshal at \u201c police headquarters; \u201d that nearly half an hour afterward the appellee came in; that in showing how that happened the \u201c lunatic,\u201d as the court below called him, by another accident or more carelessness, shot the appellee in the leg, and as a result amputation followed.\n\u00a1Now the question is, whether the appellee was'engaged in an \u201c employment \u201d when he was injured, other than such as is specified in clause 6.\nThe rule that \u201c the words of an instrument shall be taken most strongly against the party employing them \u201d (Broom Leg. Max. 594), is constantly applied against insurers. 11 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 286; Union Mut. Acc. Ass\u2019n v. Frohard, 33 Ill. App. 178; Healey v. Mut. Acc. Ass\u2019n, 133 Ill. 556.\nThe synonyms of ec employment \u201d given by Webster are, \u201c work; business; occupation; vocation; calling; office; service; commission; trade; profession.\u201d The word is susceptible of being used and generally is used, in a sense which would exclude an application of it to this temporary attendance at a State Fair in any capacity. The occupation and vocation of the appellee remained unchanged.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Louis Shissler, for appellant.",
      "Mr. W. A. Foster, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Travellers Preferred Accident Association v. James Newell Kelsey.\nAccident Insurance\u2014Conditions in Policy\u2014Breach,\n1. The rule that \u201cthe words of an instrument shall be taken most strongly against the party employing them \u201d is constantly applied against insurers.\n2. An \u201cAgriculture Sup\u2019t\u201d does not change his occupation in view of a clause in an accident insurance policy, providing that no recovery may be had in case of injury received in a more hazardous employment engaged in without notice, by acting temporarily as superintendent of police at a state fair.\n[Opinion filed November 15, 1892.]\nAppeal from Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Riohabd S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Louis Shissler, for appellant.\nMr. W. A. Foster, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0371-01",
  "first_page_order": 369,
  "last_page_order": 371
}