From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dorsey v. Kriloff

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
May 5, 1943
319 Ill. App. 116 (Ill. App. Ct. 1943)

Opinion

Gen. No. 42,042. (Abstract of Decision.)

Opinion filed May 5, 1943

INTOXICATING LIQUORS, § 135when insurers of tavern owners not liable in garnishment. Where plaintiff, who was a private detective, contracted with defendants to watch their place of business, while at the same time carrying on the same service for several other businesses, but he had the special duty of preserving order in defendants' tavern, for which he was paid extra compensation, held that, since he was injured while accommodating the bartender by removing a patron from the premises, he was acting on behalf of defendants and, under policy of indemnity here, insurers are not liable in garnishment.

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Appeal from Superior Court of Cook county; Hon. FRANCIS B. ALLEGRETTI, presiding.

Judgment reversed. Heard in third division, first district, this court at December term, 1941.

Ekern Meyers, for appellants;

Donald L. Thompson and Vernon A. Forsberg, of counsel.

Blowitz, Baskin Kallick, for appellee;

Samuel J. Baskin, of counsel.


"Not to be published in full." Opinion filed May 5, 1943.


Summaries of

Dorsey v. Kriloff

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
May 5, 1943
319 Ill. App. 116 (Ill. App. Ct. 1943)
Case details for

Dorsey v. Kriloff

Case Details

Full title:Taft Dorsey, Appellee, v. Boris Kriloff and Sam Newman, Trading as Boris…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Date published: May 5, 1943

Citations

319 Ill. App. 116 (Ill. App. Ct. 1943)
48 N.E.2d 768

Citing Cases

Spencer v. Travelers Ins. Co.

The majority of the cases in which the policy excludes or fails to cover "any employee", such as we have in…