New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-06-20
Important Decision, 4,

AN important decision has been recently rendered. L
by she supreme Court Of Missouri affectine sle
of persons insured under the ordinary forms ~ onar
policies.
We call the particular attention Ct merchants and
others interested, to the subjoined statement Il
case and of the points decided, which We have taken
from the St. Lonis Republican, Of the 12th inst.
Wise, assignee Of Eubank, The Marine Insurance
Company of st. Louis. #7H5SS
STATEMENT.--Samucl L. James took ont a poiev /
in the usual form Of open policies issued by the MAJ
rine Insurance Company. 81 Those portions of it d
which are material to the question raised in the court
below, and passed upon in the Supreme Court, are as
follows, viz. s:5Sisa 4s7
This policy sof Insurance witnesseth that the Ma.
| rne insurance Company of ST. Louis, do, by these
presents, cause NJ Samuel L. James to be insured,
one Thousand eight hundred and fftytEree on ali
shipments OF merchandise. the property Of the as
sured at and from places within the United States
direct TO st. Louis on good ships and vessels by sea-
good steamboats, on lakes and rivers good canal boats
on canals and by railroads land the assured to
notify this company of every such shipment as soon
Theree psteng invoices and
Of merchandise. No shipment from ST. Louis viii be
covered BY this policy until reported to and accepted
by this Company. This policy will also cover ali con
slgnments to the address Of the assured whereon in
surance may be required either by endorsement on
b ladng, or by letter per mail previous to- or at the
time OF shipment; the assured to notify this CoInpa-
ny OF every such shipment as soon as known to him,
valuation not to exceed st. Louis urices.', tThis
policy will cover any other shipment only when Is.
| hereon.S - 80
James made a shipment of goods, belonging to
Eubank, from st: Louis to Council Bluffs and applied
for and obtained insurance on them under this policy
The allegations Of the petition respect to the isa
rance are as follows, viz: y: Sf93ss
6 That on or about the first day Of April, 1853, said
James, acting for the plaintiffs assignor Cornelius
Eubank, made shipment of the merchandise the
property OF said Eubank upon good steamboat viz
the steamboat Georgia, at the said port Of ST. Louis
| to be thence conveyed and transported to Council
Bluffs, town the Missouri river; that at the time
when said shipment was made, said James, acting for
said Eubank notified said defendant of said Shipment
and specially applied for insurance thereon for the
| said Eubank which application was then and there
accepted, and it was then and there agreed by and
between said James, so acting aforesaid for said
4 Eubank; and the said defendant that said insurance
should be made and perfected by the same being en-
tered and endorsed on said James policy aforesaid
for said Eubank and it agreed that the costs and
Expenses OF said insurance should be placed in said
James regular insurance accOunt with said defendant
and be charged to and collected Of and paid by said
James, the same if the said merchandise SO insured
had been property of said James although it was well
understood at the time Of the contracting as aforesaid
Eubank and that the said insurance was his and for
the benefit OF him, the said Eubank. The plaintiff
further states that, thereupon, the endorsement of
said insurance was made upon said James policy and
tdhell the ana defend
ant then and there agreed and forthe consideration
of Sls4 80, paid orto be.pad by said James to said
defendant did then and there insure said propertyof
said EHbank, for him the said Eubank, against the
\, perlls aforesaid, in said policy mentioned g
The plaintiff further states, that the manner aore.
said OF making said insurance according to long
continued custom Of defendant in such like casesn
l. The petition then alleges loss by one of the pers
insured against, in compliance with the conditions Of
the policy and the assignment of the claim to plain
tiff, who prays Judgment, etc. 4.
To this petition the defendant demurred generally,
thereby admitting the facts to be as alleged and de-
nying plaintiff right to recover on the case stated in
4 his, petition - ss5l s7Tf
II The demurrer was sustained, on the erornd that
there was no contract with the plaintiff or with
Eubank, his. .assignor, and that the policy covered
nothing but goods which were the property Of James
The pla1ntif appealed to the Supreme Court where
the Judgment Of the court below was affirmed. s
The opinion was delivered by Scott JUSTICE and il
:, held 1st that if an insurance is made by a per
: son in his own name only, without any Indication in
the policy that any otheris interested it can be ap
Piled only to his own proper interest in the sbiert
f orhis nterestas trustee, or in some other Way.
r I'd. That npocies, the insured may be described
in such way, that any person may be comprehended
and become entitled to the contract by proving that
he was the party intended by the policy, as e. g. if
policy be made in the of any particular per-
: son and whom it may concern
81 That the policy inquestion contains no clause
or any words indicative that the interest of any other
person than of him named in the contract, was in
tended to be covered by it.
The agreement that q this policy will cover any
other shipment only when specially applied for and
accepted by endorsement hereon" isnot equivalent to
the words " for the owners or for whom it NAV
concern 1t applies only to the proper interest Of
the insured.
4th. That the rule against the admission of parol
evidence to explain written contracts is intexibe.
Custom cannot sanction violation of lava distinct
additional independent stipulation not comprehended
or covered by the language of the policy, cannot be
, introduced into it by usage. ~ f
1t is to state for fn1I IF 4ba
case that the assignee of James sued the company be-
fore this suit was instituted. The company set up
the defence that the property did not belong to him
: but was the property of Eubank. This defence was
/, successful. #
The points decided by the court are not new but
they are of Importance as exhibiting the occasional
results of the habtua nattention Of merchants as to
the terms OF policies which they receive and show
ing that their customs and UNDERSTANDINGS will not
protect them in cases of controversy. t