{
  "id": 2703157,
  "name": "William Edwards v. Farmers' Insurance Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Edwards v. Farmers' Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1874-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "84",
  "last_page": "86",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 Ill. 84"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2945,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.749925230309752e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40891843501300656
    },
    "sha256": "f175ccfa7ab37fd0438082284a848c35d638ce1ee19c76d4b5b7c0d2c6fdddbf",
    "simhash": "1:16136e4e04557a9c",
    "word_count": 493
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:15:58.689091+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Edwards v. Farmers\u2019 Insurance Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis suit was brought on a note given to the insurance company to secure the several annual premiums to become due on a policy of insurance upon the property of appellant. He insists the. policy did not describe accurately all the property embraced in his application, and therefore he had the right, for that reason, to rescind the contract of insurance, which he alleges he did as soon as the error was discovered.\nThe policy by its terms included appellant\u2019s dwelling house, barn, granary, grain, hay, and other articles usually found on a farm. The amount insured on the property enumerated was $3,000, for a period of five years.\nThe variance between the policy and the application, it is alleged, consists in a misdescription of the item of hay\u2014included in the policy. The application asked for insurance \u201c on hay in the stack and in the field, $200 ; \u201d and the policy reads, \u201c $200 on his hay in stack within fifty feet of stable.\u201d All other property enumerated in the application, it is conceded, was accurately described in the policy.\nThe misdescription insisted upon is not material. The thing to be insured was \u201c hay in the stack,\u201d and in that particular the policy follows the application. In either case, it was in the field, and it is wholly immaterial whether it was \u201c within fifty feet of stable.\u201d That part of the description may be rejected and the remainder is a substantial compliance with the application, that it is described as \u201c hay in the stack.\u201d\nBut, aside from this view, the policy refers to the application for a \u201c more particular description \u201d of the property insured, and by apt words makes it \u201c a part .of this contract \u201d of insurance. The application having thus been made a \u201cpart of the policy,\u201d the two instruments must be construed together. When this is done there is no difficulty in determining what property was insured. There was no misdescription of any item. All the property appellant contracted to have insured was embraced by appropriate description in the,policy, and hence the right of rescission insisted upon did not exist.\nNo error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed. .\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Stewart, Phelps & Stewart, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. Almon Kidder, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Edwards v. Farmers\u2019 Insurance Company.\n1. Insurance \u2014 description of property in 'policy. Where an application is for insurance \u201c on hay in the stack and in the field,\u201d and the policy issued upon the application is upon \u201c hay in stack within fifty feet of stable,\u201d the discrepancy is not such as to entitle the insured to rescind the contract of insurance.\n2. Same \u2014 construction of policy. Where a policy of insurance refers to an application, and by apt words makes the application a part of the policy, the two instruments will be construed together.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Stewart, Phelps & Stewart, for the appellant.\nMr. Almon Kidder, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0084-01",
  "first_page_order": 82,
  "last_page_order": 84
}