TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Knickerbocker Life Insurance v. Seeleman

The Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company v. Samuel Seeleman

Knickerbocker Life Ins. v. Seeleman, 83 Ill. 446 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 15, 1876
Judges
Breese
Citations
83 Ill. 446
Syllabus
Contract—right to recover for services. A party can not recover for services performed under a special contract, where the evidence fails to show a performance of the contract on his part, or that he was prevented from performing by the other party.
Summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Josiah McBoberts, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Breese

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Breese delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was assumpsit, in the Superior Court of Cook county, by Samuel Seeleman, plaintiff, and against the Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company, defendant, on an. instrument in writing, of the following tenor:

“ $300 Chicago, February 10, 1873.

“We hereby agree to pay Samuel Seeleman $300, as an attorney fee, in the event of his effecting a settlement of claims under two policies for $6000, in favor of Margaretta Friedel, on the life of her late husband, providing that terms are such that the Knickerbocker Life Insurance Co. accept of them, and adjust the losses in accordance with said terms; said $300 to be paid to him by us immediately upon the consummation of said settlement.

Wheaton & Randall,

Managers.”

The general issue was pleaded, and the same tried by a jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for three hundred dollars, to reverse which defendant appeals.

We have not considered it necessary to notice the various points made by appellant on this record, being well satisfied the evidence fails to show a performance of the contract on the part of appellee. It is clear he did not effect a settlement of the claims under these policies of insurance, but wholly failed therein, and, as the evidence shows, he, of his own accord, abandoned the effort.

The claim made by appellee, that he was prevented, by the act of the company, from effecting a settlement, after he had expended time and labor therein, is unfounded, being wholly unsupported by the testimony; consequently, he could not be allowed to recover as upon a quantum meruit. The instructions, therefore, for appellee, on this theory, were erroneous, and should not have been given.

The judgment is reversed.

Judgment reversed*

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1885–1886: 118852026peak 1885 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Parrott v. Goss17 Ill. App. 110 (1885)

Most recent

  1. Parrott v. Goss17 Ill. App. 110 (1885)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list