Case Name: Chai Nashelman, Appellee, v. Grand Lodge Progressive Order of the West, Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1918-03-12
Citations: 209 Ill. App. 636
Docket Number: Gen. No. 23,188
Parties: Chai Nashelman, Appellee, v. Grand Lodge Progressive Order of the West, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 209
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
Chai Nashelman, Appellee, v. Grand Lodge Progressive Order of the West, Appellant.
Gen. No. 23,188. (Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Insubance, § 434 —what proof necessary to permit recovery for loss of hand. In an action to recover under an accident insurance policy for the loss of a hand through sustaining a fracture in falling, plaintiff, to recover, must show that the injury resulted* in a total loss of the usual functions of the hand.
2. Evidence, § 410*—when expert evidence admissible to show nature and extent of fracture of hand. In an action to recover under an accident insurance policy for the loss of a hand through sustaining a “Colle’s fracture” thereof, defendant may introduce expert evidence to*show the nature of such a fracture and the effect of it.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. "WIixiam N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch, Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed March 12, 1918.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Chai Nashelman, plaintiff, against Grand Lodge Progressive Order of the West, a corporation, defendant, to recover on an accident insurance policy. From a judgment for plaintiff for $500, defendant appeals.
G. J. Norden and Samuel Micon, for appellant.
Max M. Kobshak and George L. Reker, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Matchett
delivered the opinion of the court.
3. Tbial, § 45 —when remarks of court prejudicial. In an action to recover under an accident policy, remarks of the court in ruling upon the testimony held prejudicial to defendant.