{
  "id": 5281014,
  "name": "Rochester German Ins. Co. v. P. H. Heffron",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rochester German Ins. v. Heffron",
  "decision_date": "1900-06-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "659",
  "last_page": "661",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 Ill. App. 659"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4878441
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "72"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/14/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5445147
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "432"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/138/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2780189
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "415"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/85/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5275391
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/54/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5258727
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/84/0610-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5788886
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/78/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2617641
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "418"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/65/0415-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3605,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6013524340608275
    },
    "sha256": "523aace472e1c063f63abf55094e4b00d73629656d56ba3e6aaa14fba695c344",
    "simhash": "1:b4e83373e289e7fe",
    "word_count": 620
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:30:54.280538+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Rochester German Ins. Co. v. P. H. Heffron."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis suit was brought by appellee against appellant to recover upon an insurance policy, for a loss by fire. The only declaration filed consists of the common counts. To said declaration appellant filed a plea of the general issue. At the trial the first evidence offered was a paper identified as a policy of fire insurance issued by appellant to appellee. Appellant objected thereto upon the ground that said policy was not admissible under said declaration. Said objection was overruled and the policy admitted in evidence, to which the appellee duly accepted. It was thereupon agreed by counsel and assented to by the court, that to save the necessity of repeated objections and rulings, all evidence in regard to the policy and in regard to the loss should be considered as objected to and the objection overruled and exceptions duly preserved.\nThe only question which we deem it necessary to consider in this case is whether the evidence offered should have been admitted under the declaration which consisted of the common counts and nothing more.\nThe general rule is that where there are conditions precedent to a right of recovery, such conditions should be set out in a declaration and their performance averred, or that the performance thereof had been waived. Conditions subsequent to a right of recovery may be left to be set up as a defense. (Rockford Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 65 Ill. 415, 418.)\nMo reason is apparent, taking this case out of the general rule. As was stated -by this court in Supreme Lodge, etc., v. Meister, 78 Ill. App. 649, 653:\n\u201cSo far as we have observed, there is no case in Illinois in which a recovery upon an insurance policy, or a mutual benefit certificate, has been sustained in the absence of a special count.\u201d\nThe case of Concordia Fire Ins. Co. v. Heffron, 84 Ill. App. 610, was one in which the same plaintiff brought suit to recover for a loss by reason of the same fire, and the parties there were represented by the same counsel who appeared in the coui-t below in the case at bar. It was there held that a recovery should not have been permitted under the common counts, and the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.\nIn the case at bar the policy of insurance should, not have been admitted in evidence under the declaration. (Concordia Fire Ins. Co. v. Heffron, ante; Supreme Lodge, etc., v. Meister, ante; Russell v. Gillmore, 54 Ill. 147; Phoenix M. L. Ins. Co. v. Baker, 85 Ill. 410, 415; Mutual Accident Assn. v. Tuggle, 138 Ill. 428, 432; Rollins v. Duffy, 14 Ill. App. 69, 72.\nFor the reason indicated the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bates & Harding, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Mo appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rochester German Ins. Co. v. P. H. Heffron.\n1. Pleading\u2014Conditions Precedent and Subsequent.\u2014The general rule is that where there are conditions precedent 'to a right of recovery, such conditions should be set out in the declaration and their performance averred, or that the performance of the same has been waived. Conditions subsequent to a right of recovery may be left to be set up as a defense.\n2. Same\u2014Policies of Insurance Inadmissible Under the- Common Counts.\u2014A policy of insurance is not admissible under a declaration containing only the common counts. It must be specially pleaded.\nAssumpsit, on a policy of insurance. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1899.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed June 19, 1900.\nBates & Harding, attorneys for appellant.\nMo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0659-01",
  "first_page_order": 681,
  "last_page_order": 683
}