Cincinnati Mutual Health Assurance Co. v. Rosenthal
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the Recorder’s Court of the city of Chicago; the Hon. William K. McAllister, Judge, presiding. The opinion of the court contains a statement of the case. Messrs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Recorder’s Court of the city of Chicago; the Hon. William K. McAllister, Judge, presiding. The opinion of the court contains a statement of the case. Messrs. Moore & Caulfield, for the appellants, contended that the act of 1855, requiring insurance companies created in another State to comply with certain conditions before they are allowed to transact business in this State, does not render contracts entered into by such companies void, but simply imposes a penalty for a non-conformity to the law; that is, the law punishes the agent of the company who undertakes to act in…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Walker
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by appellants, in the recorder’s court of Chicago, against appellee, to recover the unpaid balance of a note. The note was given to appellants for stock in the company and for premium, subject to the call of the directors of the company. The general issue was filed, also a special plea. The latter plea, in substance, averred that appellants were an assurance company, created under the laws of the State of Ohio, and not under or by the laws of this State, for the purpose of insuring the health of persons against personal injury or disability • that at…
2Cited by53 opinions
- Insurance Co. of North America v. BrimIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Penn v. BornmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
- Katz v. HerrickIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Joseph T. Ryerson & Son v. ShawIllinois Supreme Court · 1917
- Union Trust Co. v. Preston National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.