Case ID: ill-app_187/html/0289-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Clark", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Columbia Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Loeb’s Insurance Agency, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,675.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Insurance, § 63&emdash;when evidence insufficient to show "broker liable for premiums. In an action by an insurance company against á broker to recover premiums on policies delivered to it, where plaintiff claimed that defendant agreed to pay premiums thereon, held that the evidence was insufficient to establish such agreement or to show that defendant collected the premiums.
    2. Insurance, § 63*&emdash;when broker not liable for premiums. A broker who procures insurance for another is not liable for the premium unless he collects it.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Thomas F. Scully, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 9, 1914.
    Rehearing denied June 23, 1914.
    Statement of tlie Case.
    Action by Columbia Insurance Company against Loeb’s Insurance Agency to recover premiums upon insurance policies issued by the plaintiff and delivered to defendant as a broker, which premiums, less a commission of fifteen per cent, allowed the defendant, it is alleged the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff. To reverse a judgment entered on a finding in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error.
    Kremer & Greenfield, for plaintiff in error.
    Newman, Poppenhusen & Stern, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Yols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, mwa topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Municipal Court op Chicago, § 26*—sufficiency of statement of facts. A statement of facts giving in narrative form what purports to be the testimony of the witnesses, held not such a statement as is contemplated by the statute.

4. Trial, § 295*—when filing of propositions of law may he refused. Refusal of propositions of law submitted by plaintiff after the finding and judgment were entered, held not error.