Karton v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the court.
In a suit on an automobile insurance policy there was a trial before the court without a jury and a finding and judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $1,617.50, and defendant appeals.
Counsel for defendant in their brief say that garnishment proceedings were instituted on a judgment and interrogatories filed and they contend that the garnishee should have been discharged. This is a misapprehension. There was no garnishment proceeding but the cause was instituted upon an insurance policy issued by the defendant covering an automobile…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Stovall v. New York Indemnity Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1928
- Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
- Odden v. Union Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1930
- Peterson v. MaloneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Drewek v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Konrad v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1956
- Hays v. Country Mutual InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1963
- Landis Ex Rel. Talley v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1952
- Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Freeport InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1961
- Cocos v. American Automobile InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1939
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.