The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-08-03 00:00:00

A LIFE ASSURANCE CASE.

The Cause of "Hoare 0 itre,t,,ilaje," has Iwo before Sir
it.Nialins, and was a snit instituted by the chairman of the
dim Life AMIIMICO Society, with a view or procuring a
declaration by the Court that a policy of assurance upon the
life of Mrs Forms.y, 110 w deceased, was obtained by W.I. by
concealms us and fr.sud, and might to be caneelled, and fir
au ii.junesion °restrain tin- detenrisnA Premrisige, who was
Mrs. Formby's executor, from In Issuing or prosecuting asp
action ag.dust the society spat the policy.
-- - -

_
The plsintiff's case WM that in December, 1870, Mrs.
Formby proposed, through a Dr. Lyle, to effect an
assurance upon her life with the Sun Office for
0.000. The usual form if proposal, containing
minute inquiries as to health and family history,
was furnished to and favourably answered by Mrs.
Formby, sod die also signed a declaration making the
truths of the statements contained is, her proposal the
basis of her contract with the scciety. The names of a
medical attendant and two friends were also supplied
by Mrs. Fortubv, and the gentlemen thus referred
to gave sufficiently satisfactory replies. Mrs. Formby
was also examined by the society's medical officer at
Exeter, to whim eke gave so satisfactory an account of
her health that he did not subject her to any special
examination, but passed her as a first class life. The
proposal was then accepted and a policy for £5,000 was
granted in the usual form to Mrs. Formby at a
yearly premium of £ll6 9s. 21, on the 30th of
Decenaber, IC7O. Mrs. Formby died on the Ist of
February, 1872, an I the office having no sus-
picions at flint had the intention of paving her
executors the 1:5.000 on the following 21st of June. Be-
fore that day, hi waver, they, as they state, discovered
that Mrs. Formby, who had hail some very severe con-
finements, was not, at the time the policy was effected,
In tie goo I state of heath in which she represented
herself to be. and they then filed the present bill, on
the gia,uml that Mrs. Fitt ruby had kept back informa.
tion with which the society oueht to have been ac-
quainted, and which would have caused them to reject
her prminsal. The bill was tiled on the 14th of June,
and on the 22nd of June the defendant Bremridge com-
menced an action on the policy against the society in
the Court of Exchequer.

mikut,

Mr. Cotton, Q.C., and Mr. Bush, for the plaintiff,
now moved for an injunction;
Mr. Claw, Q' .C. and Mr. Charles Hall, for Mr.
Brerurid e, opposed the motion.
The Vice-Chancellor said that for the purposes of
lie decision he should assume that the office was
induced to accept this policy by frail—i e., by mis-
representation and suppression of facts, and that
if such was the case the policy would be void.
The question, then, was, ought the action com-
menced by the executor to go on? The case raised
considerations of great importance, awl it could not
he denied that in a case ot this kind, involving the
question of fraud, the Court of Chancery had con-
current urisclicition with the Courts of Common Law,
and that the consideration of the question whether or
not this policy was fraudulently obtained, was as much
within the jurisdiction of the one Court as the other.
But it must be borne in mind that the ordinary remedy
was by action at law, and it was most important that
it should to understood by insmers, whether under-
writers or fire or life insurers, that the proper and con
venient tribunal to decide such questions was a Court of
Common Law, and that it was not competent for such
persons to file a bill in Chancery and take thecase out of
the proper tribunal, where the witnesses could be seen
and their demeanour observed. The grounds on which
the society disputed the policy in Chancery were
equally available to them as a defence to the action at
Common Law. A good deal wou'd depend upon
medical eci tepee, and his Honour could see no ground
of equity or expediency in transferring a case of this
nature fr •m a Court of Common Law, where the evi-
dence was oral, to be tried in the Court of Chancery
upon written evidence. On the ground, therefore, not
that the Court of Chancery had no jurisdiction, but
that it would be most inconvenient to exercise that
jurisdiction in cases of this nature, his Honour refused
the motinn.

WRIGHT AND WIFE v. THE MIDLAND
RAILWAY COMPANY.
The above rase bas Mon tried at Let, and au an action
for damnois fT rorsimat injuries caused by the ntgligence
of the liefe,dants.
The phantiff was engaged in building in the year
1840, wit. n a past of a billing fell upon his head,
and 11013ic time aitxrwarde he gave up building and
took to the bunions of a grocer. He afterwards got
quite well, and had been again engage,l in the building
trade for the last eight years. He sometimes
made ti 4 0 a year. He is now 113 years of age. On
the 29th of August he was returning home to Sheffield
from Moreambe Bay, where he had been staying on ac-
count of his wile's health, when a train ran into that iu
which he was travelling, and he and his wife received a
shock. This happened close to the Leeds Station. ,
They were taken home to Sheffield, and the next day
Mr. W'right walked into Sheffield to fetch a doctor.
Mrs. Wright was very ill and sick, and continued
in bed for a fortnight, and was confined to the
house for a month. She suffered from a pain in
her hip which stiil prevented her from walking
freely. She Was still weak, and Complained
of loss of memory and inability to grasp her needle at
work or do any household work. She Was now 'almost
recovered. Mr. Wright did not complain much at
first; but he became worse and now suffered from de-
bility, logs of memory, and inability to work at his
business. lie repeated several times that it was a sad
thing when both heads of the family were laid pros-
trate by one stroke.
Mr. Seymour, Q.C. : Then you put your present
illnees down to the railway accident?
The Witness : What would you put it down to
if you were quite well and strong and then your child-
ren had to teadi you what to say?
The elefendanta case was that they had been guilty
of no negligence. Their train was wheie it ought to
be ; but a train of the No-, th-Westet n Railway Com-
pany c dile out of their station, notwithstanding two
signals turn, d against it. and ran into the Midland
train, in which the plaintiffs were seated. The
plaintiff by his particular,. of demand claimed i'49o,
which thd .lefenoants contended was an exaggerated
claim. They also contended that the accident was
a slight one, and that no complaint was made by
am passenger at the time, and that, although the
plaintiffs were shaken. yet they had not guttered any
' substantial injury. It was also suggested that MI s.
Wiigit Was ..iiifering only from.paihtev a' lie, in con-
sequence if having assisted in painting some houses.
; Fits lordship reserved to Mr. Field, Qr., the core-
, tiOU 4 f the liability of tie defendants for the Lulli.
r genre of the North-Wwteen Railway.
Witnesses were called by the defendants to prove
the variona answers tint up by them.
The jury returned a verdict for the ddrudanta.