Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1855-11-26
al .,ecsions.

The following deeis ions in courts OF iaw.ih"ugn
occurring gu, of this state. relate to matters IN
which our people have an interest. They seem
TO rs TO embody sound law and their publication
NAV serve to throw light upon the reciprocal
rights aud obligations of parties similarly situated.
We cony from the Baltimore American:
In the case of the Union Mutual Insur-
anee Company of New YORK rersHs The Com
mercial Mutual Marine Insurance coinpa-
ny, an action IL enforce an agreement To
insure $1,000 upon the ship Great Re
puhlic. On the trial before Judge Curtis. in the
United States Circuit Court at Boston. a deci-
sion has been given for the plaintiff. According
10 a statement, made If the case, the plaintiffs ON
the 24in Decrmber. 1888. by telegraph and
through their broker in Boston. effected an insu
rance Of $1,000 on the ship Great Republic with
the defendants. upon the terms and conditions
named by the latter: the contract was perfected
in the usual manner. On the evening of the
26th instant las will be well remembered by our
readers) the Great Republic was destroyed by
FIRE and upon a demand being made by the plain
tiffs for the policy, it was refused. ON the ground
that the contract Of insurance ,ras not complete
haring been made on Chrisimas Day. The de-
PENDANTS formally declined TO issue a policy to
the plaintiffs or t. pay the loss accruing under it,
and the above suit was instituted Ia recover.
Judge Curtis in delivering his opinion held
that the acceptance of a proposal for insu-
rance is binding. even although not signed BY
either party. and that a parol agreement to in
sure is binding. the proposal being in writing.
The agreement, was Therefore enforced.
An important decision has been given in the
Montreal. Canada. Courts with respect TO goods
sold by auction ~hen the invoice price is stated
by the auctioneer. The question was, whether
the reading Of an INVOICE at a sale was a repre-
sentation of such u kind that, fit turned out to be
"a misrepresentation. it would discharge the buy
er. In the case which actually came before the
Count, the responsibility Of the consignees and
the auctioneer, rs well as the proof made, left no
shadow Of suspicion that the parties concerned on
this side had had any share in the alleged book
ing Of the invoice which had been read at the
sale. Indeed the proof did not directly establish
hat the consignors had not really themselves
paid for the goods at the rates stated in the pa
perl hut the defendants failed TO make proof that
they had done So, against the testimony of sew
eral large buyers that the price mentioned was
in excess Of the fair rate. 1t was nevertheless,
held by the Court. that if the buyers, as reasnna.
BILE men. might he supposed 10 have boon deceiv-
ed by the representation in the invoice ot the
the cost of the goods. they must be relieved from
their bargain; and that point having been left to
the jury, the decision was in favor of the buy
or.
Judge Grier. of the L. S. Supreme Court, has
decided. on n suit instituted in Pennsylvania that
the legal weight of n ton of coal is 2,24O lbs.. and
TINT no State law can he enacted altering the
quantity. According to this decision every coal
dealer who gives hut 1900 lbs. to the ton, can be
arrested and convicted on a charge of swindling.
The law of Pennsylvania makes the ton only p
900 lbs, and IA violent warfare has for some time
been waged against the coal dealers, with tie re-
suit as nbove stated.