Moir Hotel Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

Appellate Court of Illinois

Moir Hotel Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

207 Ill. App. 318, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 642

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 2, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,972

StatusPublished

This text of 207 Ill. App. 318 (Moir Hotel Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moir Hotel Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 207 Ill. App. 318, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 642 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Insurance, § 397a* — what losses covered by burglary policy. A burglary policy insuring the owner of a hotel building against loss by robbery (commonly known as holdup) occasioned by felonious, violent and forcible abstraction of property from its office, counting room or store, where such loss was not occasioned by any employee and where the loss was brought about by violent and forcible means (commonly known as holdup), and where the premises were directly under the charge or care of at least two persons, must be construed as insuring the owner against loss occasioned by a forcible and violent abstraction of its property from its premises by breaking open a locked case back of a cashier’s desk and cigar stand in which the cashier had placed a tin box filled with money during her temporary absence from her desk, and the liability for loss cannot be limited by the word “holdup” to a violent taking of the same under circumstances which would constitute robbery.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Insurance, § 397a* — what losses covered by burglary policy. A burglary policy insuring the owner of a hotel building against loss by robbery (commonly known as holdup) occasioned by felonious, violent and forcible abstraction of property from its office, counting room or store, where such loss was not occasioned by any employee and where the loss was brought about by violent and forcible means (commonly known as holdup), and where the premises were directly under the charge or care of at least two persons, must be construed as insuring the owner against loss occasioned by a forcible and violent abstraction of its property from its premises by breaking open a locked case back of a cashier’s desk and cigar stand in which the cashier had placed a tin box filled with money during her temporary absence from her desk, and the liability for loss cannot be limited by the word “holdup” to a violent taking of the same under circumstances which would constitute robbery.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 Ill. App. 318, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moir-hotel-co-v-fidelity-deposit-co-of-maryland-illappct-1917.