The Alexandria herald. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1811-1826, 1822-11-15
!. COMMERCIAL LAW.

Ahe tonowlnS case was argued and
decided, the week before last, in tho SUI
preme court sitting at Salem, Mass.
Hugh MsCuLioch, VS.. the Eogle Ineu.
rance Comhany.
The parties agreed to submit the case
to the decision of the court on the fol.
lowing facts. \
On the 29th day of December, 1890,
the plaintiff, who resides at Kennebunk.
wrote Zebedee Cook, Jr. president of
the Eagle Insurance company, the de-
PENDANT in this action, requesting infor.
nation OF the rate at which insurance
could be effected to the amount of $500
dollars on the plaintiff 5 brig Hesper and
cargo from the island of Martinico TO
Boston. On the first day of January fol.
lowing the said Cook wrote to the plain
tiff in answer, and stated that said com.
pany would take the risk on said vessel
and cargo at two and an half per cent
This letter was received by the plaintiff
on the third day of January, on which
day he wrote and enclosed BY mail to said
Cook, reply, requesting him to fill a
policy for him on said vessel and cargo
from $500 to 5000 as he should prefer,
and stating that his friends M'Lellan and
Chadwick, OF Boston, would call for the
policy and pay him the premium note
On the Cd day Of January said Cook
wrote 10 the plaintiff and stated that the
Office declined to take the risk. Said
letter was not received by the plain.
Tiff till after he had sent by mail his
letter of the date of January third
All the said four letters were regularly
received by mail by the parties to whom
they were addressed; and copies of them
were to be considered as part of the case.
The said Cook wrote the plaintiff under
date Of January fifteenth, that if the brig
Hesper arrived safe the Company would
not receive the premium. Tn the third
day OF January, the plaintiff wrote Nc
Lellan and Chadwick, requesting them to
call at the Eagle Insurance Office, and to
give their note for the premium. On
the receipt OF that letter Mcclellan and
Chadwick called accordingly at the Office
of The defendants and demanded said DO
icy and offered TO secure the premium
as is customary, but they refused to make
and execute policy and to take the pre-
MUM note, and afterwards, and when,
according to the credit usually given for
premium on such policies, the premium
on such Insurance il made, would have
expired, the said Mcclellan & Chadwick
as the agents Of the plaintiff rendered to
said Cook the amount Of premium which
would have been due had the policy been
written according to the plaintiffs propo-
SaI. hSVf e.aIh nnnk kAk IS. ~ Ii
dants refused to receive the same. The
plaintiff was interested in said vessel to
the amount Of more than $4,000. On
said voyage the vessel was totally lost, as
was also the cargoexcepting s. which
was received as salvage. No salvage of
either vessel or cargo has ever been re-
ceived by the defendants.
On the 24lh March, 1872 the brig Hes
per and cargo were duly abandoned to
said Company, who refused to accept the
same, on the ground that said vessel
was not insured by said Company.
Mr.. Prescott, for the plaintiff, argued
that it appeared from these facts that
contract had been made BY the parties
The moment M'Culioch placed in the
post>office at Kennebunk his letter of Sd
Jan. accepting their offer, both parties
were bound and tho contract was com.
Plete. 1t the vessel had arrived there
after the letter had been deposited in the
post Office and M'Culloch could have in.
tercepted the letter, still the company
would have been entitled to the stipula.
ted premium. The letter was the proper
ty Of the company the moment MaCul-
ioch put it in the post Office.
Mr.. SaltoDstall for the COMPANY, con.
tended that contract had not been per.
fected between tie parties. The de6ni
ton OF an agreement is when two or more
minds are united in thing done or to be
done. There must be mutual assent.
I'LL the terms Of the agreement shall
have received the assent of both parties,
the negotiation is open and imposes no
obligation on either. The offer made
ny the company in the letter of LIST Jan.
was merely proposition, which they
were at liberty to retract or modify at
any moment before it was accepted by
the other party and in fact, the company
by their letter Of I'd Jan. did re,ract and
rescind their proposition before M'Cul-
Loeb had accepted ii OF even known that
it had been made. The binding force of
a contract is derived from the assent of
both parties the offer or proposition
had ceased 10 exist before VI &C. ulloch even
knew it had been made.
The court were of this opinion, and re-
marked, In delivering their opinion, that
.he COMPANY were At liberty to change |