, 1869-02-23
INSURANCE LAM.
Important Decisien tY Chief JUS
tiee Breese, OF the Supreme
Court Of Illinois.

court OF illlho33.
The Power Of Insurance Com
panies to Vitiate Policies.
ProLabfted Articles may be Keps
for Use, but no1 Tor Sale.
What Constitutes the k<7J:iAucs of an
Insurance Policy.
The following important tccsion has been
made ry the sup.cne Court, B;ec.c, Chief its
tIce. delivering the opinion, 10 the a2p.al from
the Superior Court 0! the Coramerela! Insurance
Company, Of chsc.go, t. John Q. aehlu1.n.
Tbs was en- sct1on Of assuupstt Oh two policies
Of Insurance, brought by John c. Aehlman sRaluet
the Ct mmsrcial Insurance Company. in the gu
pe1for Court Of Chltsgo. At the April tern Of 1855.
ore Of the policies WAS dited scpten1b,r II, 1856
for $500, upon The defendants zone etory ksms
but!dirE;" tie other dated the 9th Of October.
1St5, fer $1,000, "npcu his esock Of groceries aod
psoyl.icns," snd $a00 "upou hi. stock Of ncas.''
Both policies contained this condition: This
policy shall be vitlAted By keeping gunpoWder,
ealtpe1e. fireworks, uAptha, beEz:ue, csu-
pheae. tusperttne. bu5ntns dnid. spirit gas.
crude oil. or petroleum OF refined coal or earth
fee, or any other art clet subject to legal or police
restr1ctiena On the prenitea, without written con.
tsat M neIeon; Of d9r neglset Or deviation from any
accidents from ffc; any change within t1e control
Of the assarea, material 70 he sl.k. without W1t
There we're two counts In the declaration tn
s3 saa eleven special pIas;; o II Ea.sa is.ass u
tsl,sa t1eiI petition. subscribed aad sxs!n 10
tSst tIs W. ~ ;a oo u M N ny ahdaE!t
poyed The coasel). for Change oi vsuas M on The ihs
ground that the iEhnh!tsnts Of Cook County were
preud'ced against ths company. and fo1 that reh.
cor thcy cea!d hoL e1peG! fair s1al q the cau,e
IN that comfy. Tbs petition ssates that dtf:nd.
ants had 60 kno"elRe. anu did not hear or lean,
II ae a as as5 5ans os aH aIo
o. otlecEs Thereof until that time. They thcra.
ire the renne to The clrcrit Court Of soma county
where Inc CAUSES complained Of lid not e1Ii,
The Court refused the petition, to which the
defendant ezcepted. 4 Jury was sworn a1i vcr-
III Tss 1f IL San 99a 7
pal to ,h,s Conf. '~'00 '''''A 0s'sD 'AD'' ~
Ing ertr In The rriuesl Of thc Goutt 10 = erxn,
oyer prayeo, Of the policies has no f1und st1an A.
oyer is never granted Of INSTRUMENTS not undtr
tesf. The Ee1t pot1t IL tho refusal Of the Conf
The st c,ctary Of the company. defendant "
sss1rs y 81 ~ snpsss xss H.! sS e
the company. tF1cn and powerful corporation,
1ltifatltE With poor nan. not Possessed OF the
eouIty. The eamc may be the case when r1cn
man Is contending at iaw win a poor man
Of the hardships that may cn~uc.
hrncllce ,nsa.,s that The application vss 10.
ectscien: unte, ,te sta.u'e: drst, bccluse it Tss
s.t.s " ssss q 5,sHtE :. Isn9k:,s 5am 81 u,
sf En-, g. ss
only authorizes s. parties to obtain enapgo of
senSe, and the application anet b. made b. a pa:ty
sesvs The s:s uie DOS not lneuds q ont
q the record. nor allow them 10 sNe,r to he pa.
Ii vi: be NeM to consider iii, objection In con-
neeEon T'th the second point made by tn: aapel.
Ice. which Is that The Ia did not intend suca an
These arc the several ch]ect1ons raised By the
appellee egairss change tof yenae) and. II valid
ia
Of protec!ien t5on prejudice, as nata.aIl
he Sc o. No ,sa1 II
3 & IL ~
1s@s i r. :}s!ass III ssasis II aaa's:
Parties 10 euit, eithsr party. may EaEe the a..
pl,eauon. This corporation Il one party, AID IT,
a
s " u sis h m and ~aas as1 ;ssps ana The % s
reorI,zss once1 0: eorpofation a. ! paf;J pro
hdc rtc<. suppose corporation Is sued, Or, ID
Ing, dc eires continuance; Who is summoned a.
/ pArIl~b btt IN c4srs who but a. of}i n thn
eoEpany havi1r charge Of its busirsts, c. could sIi
II s t 1aa ,
Is,o;s e. si's a'i;ooS S';s Semy;nv II a'fsgs
ssss e - = ssas
tas csef rs s1eu 1ee Gompapy b n a1d "a appe
sidcled vas whether thc answer mats b. tic c,T
n,seec vas sufficient. The Court Ea1 thu "a
arc3oue and aes broaeh u prenis anG 1ceos a
SocIc;arv ard treasurer Of ibe com panv and ,nac a.
its corporatc eeal hui VIVA uos sworn 10 BY ' az
Tns "a; not WA ne
cascs Xii tha s.on4i ser "n w ~ ~ a
q tsne ,te corporation eould not IL person swear
the nTnrr ofrct or .uet ~ Ks u, ~
irr lie tsc.. whtch Would h.ve becn ;nks,sn knon
.op11p VII ann. n III, ns rase 1oe eame fea
this Cour: ha; decided that an action for 4,
e 81 IouIt. 1uon Il Chiraoo R1Isoaa G'mp,.n.
Dullv, 10 Illinois, G5 Would Il noi \
! nn iEto!cfah!c hardship tud croes inIu.
lice to corporation thus eued, i
the same county Of the pa,ty injared
AMI te nnaprs,,np 1feat tn1I,cn "A IN hta cun1 y
o ncr*oIni Ind nfherwi.c. thst tha corp5ratia
thouJd be tietraudtd OF thu r1cht to taxa the 6n1
10 utotnsr couC,y, where tae parties would b
! unou norp snu ii 1rouu&: wnerc this tn1uenc
| did uot rrcra1if No paliy.fu 1 snlt can bn d.
II prj,cd Of thc btucG Of this inv. If il ii ad mini
T. sr,rtt T,orn ia M !, m III ~ ft- n,
tnanr catcs ii, se opnicst,ons src mad. f,r ami