Case ID: ill-app_201/html/0167-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. T. Hooper, Appellee, v. Kaskaskia Live Stock Insurance Company, Appellant.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Christian county; the Hon. James C. McBbide, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
    Reversed.
    Opinion filed April 21, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by A. T. Hooper, plaintiff, against Kaskaskia Live Stock Insurance Company, defendant, to recover for the loss of two horses claimed to have been insured by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 1411
      
      —when finding of trial court not disturbed as unsupported by evidence. Where a finding of a trial court is based upon conflicting evidence, it will not be disturbed on appeal as unsupported by the evidence, even though the evidence might support a finding to the contrary.
    2. Insurance, § 439*—validity of provision in policy for notice of illness of animal. A provision in a policy of live stock insurance requiring the insured to notify the company without delay of the illness of the animals insured is a reasonable one.
    3. Insurance, § 436*—what is effect of failure to give notice of illness of animal. Where an application for live stock insurance expressly stated that the policy issued thereon should be based upon information and answers contained therein, and the applicant in his answer to a question in the application agreed to notify the company at once in case 'of sickness or accident, and substantially “the same provision was contained in the policy, but the company received no notice of the sickness of the horses insured until after their death, held that as a result of the failure to give the required notice, the insurer had the right to return the premium and declare the policy void, and that it was immaterial whether there was a lawful delivery of the policy in question.
    Chapee, Chew & Baker, for appellant.
    R. C. Neff, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.