Case ID: ill-app_207/html/0492-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Taylor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. H. Felgar, Plaintiff in Error, v. Home Insurance Company of New York, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,290.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Words and phrases — “pilferage" defined. “Pilferage” has but one meaning and is some form of stealing.
    2. Insurance, § 397a
      
       — what does not constitute theft, robbery or pilferage of automobile. Where plaintiff’s automobile was taken from his garage by some one unknown and was returned so damaged as to require repairs to various parts and some tools, held that such damage and loss were not within the terms of an insurance policy providing against “theft, robbery or pilferage.”
    Error to "the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Pry, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 10, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by H. H. Felgar, plaintiff, against the Home Insurance Company of New York, a corporation, defendant, upon a policy of insurance on plaintiff’s automobile. From a judgment for plaintiff for $6.50, he brings error.
    plaintiff’s automobile was taken from his garage without his knowledge by persons unknown and was returned in a damaged condition. The statement of claim set forth a loss of $97.80, including for tools, $4.20; repair bill, $63.60; vulcanizing inner tubes, $5; damage to top and curtains, $25; and unearned premium, $6.50, defendant, having canceled the policy prior to its termination by its terms.
    Emory J. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
    Charles B. Obermeyer, for defendant in- error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.