Case ID: walker_4/html/0402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COLUMBIA INSURANCE CO. vs. BALDWIN.
    The 56th Section of the Act of May 1st, 1876, P. Laws 67, is constitutional and retro-active.
    Where the general agent of an Insurance Company falsely represented that there were no unpaid losses, upon an action to recover an asse ssment to pay such losses, evidence of such false representations may be given, even though four months elapsed from the time •of making them before the' insurance was effected.
    Error to Common Pleas of Chester County. No. 35, January Term, 1877. -
    This was an action brought by an Insurance Company ■against a member to recover an assessment on a premium note levied in Jnauary, 1875. Upon the trial in June, 1876, the Insurance Company offered in evidence a certificate of the amount due, signed by the secretary and attested by the seal of the company, as provided by section 8 of the Act of February 25th, i860, P. Laws, 83. The defendant objected, that by the 56th section of the Act of May 1st, 1876, P. Laws, 67, the 8th section of the Act of i860, was repealed. Plaintiff contended that the Act of 1876 was unconstitutional, and that there was nothing in the title to show that it had any application to the Columbia Insurance Company. That if constitutional, the 56th section was not retrospective. The Court sustained the defendant’s objection. The various objections to this ruling form the first four assignments of error. The insurance was effected on June 21st, 1873; and upon the trial, evidence that the company’s agent in February, 1873, misrepresented the condition of the company to Baldwin, was admitted. The State agent stated that were no losses, which were due, and for which Baldwin would be called on to pay; when in point of fact a very large amount of losses were due to pay for which the assessment in suit was levied. This was the subject of several other errors. The jury rendered a verdict for defendant.
    The Columbia Insurance Co. then took this writ of error:
    /. F. Frueauff, Wm. B. Waddell and Wm. Darlington, 'Esqs., for plaintiff in error,
    argued that the 56th section of Act of May 1st, 1876, P. Laws, 67, was unconstitutional; Article 3, Section 3, Constitution of 1874; Yeager vs. Weaver, 64 Pa., 428; Penna. R. R. Co. vs. Riblet, 66 Pa., 167; Palairet’s Appeal, 67 Pa., 495; Richards vs. Rote, 68 Pa., 248; Dorsey’s Appeal, 72, Pa., 192; Allegheny County Home’s Case, 77 Pa., 77. This suit was commenced in 1875, and there are no express words in the Act of 1876 to indicate that it is retroactive; Underwood vs. Lilly, 10 S. & R., 97; Lambertson vs. Hogan, 2 Penna.; 25; Bedford vs. Shilling, 4 S. & R., 401. If retroactive, this section was unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of the contract; Green vs. Biddle, 8 Wheaton, 1; Shonk vs. Brown, 61 Pa., 320; Palairet’s Appeal, 67 Pa., 479; Bolton vs. John’s, 5 Pa., 151.
    
      Misrepresentations by an insurance agent made four months before the insurance was effected, cannot affect the contract; Hackney vs. Allegheny M. Ins. Co., 4 Pa., 185; Coil vs. College, 40 Pa., 439; Custar vs. Gas Co., 63 Pa., 386.
    . In behalf of defendant in error it was argued that the Act of May 1, 1876, Sect. 56, is constitutional; Church Street, 54 Pa., 353; Commonwealth vs. Green, 58 Pa., 226; Yeager vs. Weaver, 64 Pa., 428; Penna. R. R. vs. Riblet, 66 Pa., 164; Mauch Chunk vs. McGee, 3 W. N. C. 33. The charter of fire-insurance Company was subject to the 4 Constitutional amendment of 1857, which reserved the power to revoke or alter the-charter. Many laws are retrospective, yet perfectly legal; Breitenbach vs. Bush, 44 Pa., 317; Chadwick vs. Moore, 8 W. & S., 49; Baldy’s Appeal, 40 Pa., 328; Coxe vs. Martin, 44 Pa., 322; Drexel vs. Miller, 49 Pa., 246.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common. Pleas on April 4th, 1878, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

There is nothing substantial in the assignment of errors in this case. Several are not supported by any bill of exceptions.

Judgment affirmed.