Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1810-12-06
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ssoyaae Curt If tie United States.
At FEB. Term, 1910.
So TI,J~eu;Ne1-

FIT FEB. Term, ESIC.
K9rn 81 WisemiAey,
The li,taal assurance S0ciety q Virginia
against Fire.
[OpIN1oN delivered by Johnsoa-J Justice
This cause comes up fr9n the Circuit
Court of Alexandra, in which a summary
Judgment has been eivcA for the rccovery
OF a contribution demanded of yhe Inem-
bers of the Mu,uI assurances Society,
contormably TO its bye laws.
The plaintiffs Isrc contest their liability
tupon several grounds:
1st, Because, BY the separation of Alex
andria frosp the state Of Virginia, they yir
tually cesyed to be members % the lnstitu-
zion.
ok, That by having omitted to leva.
Iue within seven years ttey were no longer
assured, and OF consequence nor liable to
contribute.
5dlv, That by the alteration Of the charter
in, 1905, their security and liability became
SO materially changed as to discharge thssa
from their contract.
4:hlv, That this revaluation in 1905
ought not to Be obligatory upon them, be
cause III were de!uded into it BY false or
incorrect Suggestions,
str, That they are not liable under The
description Of PERSONS who had insured pri
or 10 1904 as they ought TO be considered
only as having insured at the time of this
revalua,ion.
On ,hs frs. of thess points the Court are
of opinion, that the separation Of Alexaa-
dria from the state Of Virginia could have
no effect upon existing contracts OF indiv;-
duals, such divisions ofterritory are entire.
" political. A separation Of jurisdiction
takes place, but private Interests and pri-
vate contracts remain unaffected and every
individual relation continues the same, ex-
crpt that Of being associated under the
same government.
The circumstance taat the law Of Virei-
ria limited the company to the bounds Of
the state in performing It's functions, could
only prevent them from making new con-
tracts subsequent to the separation and IN
Ill they had received additional powers,
BIZ could no, release them from their la
b,litv TO individuals with whom they had
previously contracted Nor can the cir.
cumstance Of the members of the le-
pislalure being authorised to represent
their respective counties affect the case,
for although the Alexandria property
could no longer be represented in that
mode their was nothing to prevent their ap
pearingin person or by proxy at the meet
ings Of The company.
The Court are further Of or inion that al.
the other grounds assumed by the plaintiffs,
are equally untens5le.
Altho' at fostview it may appear re''son-
able. that he VINO is not insured is not
bound to contribute, yet their might exist
strong reasons, SHY, under the peculiar or,
cznzation of this company, a different rule
should be adopted, and certain it is, that
The individual may by his own act subject
himself to such state OF things - ne
liability of the members Of this institutions
Is Of twofold nature. ft results both from
an obligation to conform 20 the laws Of
their own making as members Of the bod y
polite, and from particular assumption or
declaration which every individual signs on
becoming member. The latter is remark
ably comprehensive. 8 We will abide by,
observe, ard adhere to the contribution,
rules, aud regulations which are already es-
tablished or may hereafter be established
by majority OF the Insured, present in per-
son or by representatives., or by the nlajori-
ty Of the insurers present III person or by
representatives, or by the majority OF the
property insured represented either hy the
persons themselves or thsr proxy duly an-
thorizzd, or their deputy as Established by