The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-04-27

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF New York.
Attachment on policies of insurance, issued in the
Superior Court for the city of Baltimore and re-
moved into the Circuit Court of the United States
for this district, under the act of Congress
These two cases tried together and were
commenced on Thursday, 10th April, and terminal
ed on Wednesday the 2lst April, bv verdict in
each case for the plaintiff for the sum of SIT 365 l3
m"nder the direction and instruction of the Court
lhcy were very fully and ably argued before the
Court Judge Giles on the prayers by r. j. Brent
for the plaintiff, and Messrs Cutting of New York
and Nelson for the Defendants Judge Giles opin-
ION 1uliy reviewed all the facts in the and the
authorities cited by the counsel; but as his opinion
was not in writing only able to give our
readers an abstract of the principal points decided
The Judge remarked in the commencement of his
opinion, that the principal point in these cases was
one deeply interesting to the commercial communi-
ty, among whom these running policies were so fire.
quently used. The defendants were insurance comma
MES Incorporated by the State of New ork and their
offices were located in the city of New York. They
had agents residing in this city, who received and
forwarded them all applications for insurance; and
received and transmitted to them the notes given
Tor the premiums from time to time, and through
whom the said defendants made payments for losses
on policies held by parties residing here The poll
cies on which these attachments were issued had
been executed by the defendants in the CITY of New
ork, and transmitted to their agents in this city,
by whom they delivered to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff in both cases, had given to the said agents
his promssory notes for the premium mentioned in
said policies, and in the case of the Sun Mutual
Insurance Co. the notes had been paid by plaintiff
and in the case of the Orient Mutual Insurance Co.
the money had been placed by him in the Union
Bank of this city, (where said notes were PAYABLE
to meet them, but that Company had 50 far de-
clmed to receive it. The first question in these
cases Is these policies of insurance to be CON
sidered as contracts made in the city of New York
or as made in the city of Baltimore? For, when
you have ascertaincd at which place the contract is
to be considered as made it is to be construed and
! ntpT'nAp ntlTh hf f1,1n
except where contract is made in one place,
and by its terms, it is positively to be performed in
another. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has
contended that these policies were to be considered
as Maryland contracts, and to be construed in re-
ference to the usagcs and customs of underwriters
| in this city. Now this became important ques-
tion in the cases. because the books OF the nsl-
rance Companies in New Gork, the schooner "Mary
w.. (whosc loss had given rise to this controversy
| was rated below Az while on the books of under
writers and mercantile records in this city she was
rated AZ The authorities referred to by plaintiffs
counsel did not, in the opinion OF the Court, sustain
the position he sought to maintain. In the case OF
| the Bank of Augusta Earles, &C.. Is Peters
! 5l9, the principal point decided was, that bank
chartered in Georgia could purchase bill of ex-
! change in Mobile.
In the case of Cox & Dix Us. The United States,
Peters, no. the point decided was that the official
! bond of the Navy Agent, although signed at New
| Orleans was for his faithfully accounting at the
| proper Department at Washington, and that there
erned by the principles of the common law, and not
by the civil law of Louisiana. The case of Zachary
| Turner Us. Boyle, in same volume, page 635, was
one OF payment made in Louisiana by plaintiff,
for Boyle, and by his sanction, to release his prop
| erty there attached, and created debt due there
and was not released by the subsequent discharge
of Boyle under the insolvent laws of Maryland.
In the case of Hazards administrators u.s. The
| New England Marine Insurance Company s Peters
557, the point decided was that the letter, on ap
plicaton for insurance, written in New York where
| Hazard resided, although addressed to the defcn
dants, a company Incorporated in Massachusetts
and having their Office in Boston, to be TESTED
as to the truth of its representations by the custom
as to the extent of coppering vessels in New York
! and not by the custom i'll Boston. Judge Story il
his great work on ''The Conflict Of Laos,' section
27S, says: ga policy of insurance executed in Eng
| land on French ship for the French owner on {
voyage from one French port to another, would b,
treated as IN English contract, and in case of loss
the debt would be treated as an English debt" So
| in section 2S9, the same learned author says: "a
merchant resident in Ireland sends to England Ger
! tain bills of exchange, with blanks for the dates
the sums, the times of payment and the names of the
drawees These bills are signed by the merchant il
| Ireland, indorsed with his name, and dateC
| from place in Ireland, and are transmitted to a
correspondent in gland, with authority to him t.
fill up the remaining parts fthe instrument The cor
respondent in England accordingly fills them up dat
ed at place in Ireland. Are the bills when thus fill
| ed up and issued to be deemed English or Irisl
contracts? 1t has been held, that under such cir
| cumstances, they are to be deemed Irish contracts
and of course to be governed to stamps and Other
| legal acquisitions by the law of Ireland" anC
analogous principles have been recognized in the
| following cases: Wolsev Us. Bailey, 7 Foster N
H. III; Smith rs. Smitn, ibid. pa; Davis rs
Coleman, IL Iredell, 3O3. But this very question
has been settled in two cases by the Court of Ap
| peals of New York; and in by the superior
| Court in the same State, in tha cases of Hyde as
Goodnow, 3 Comstock, 2G4; Western rs. The Genes
see Mutual Insurance Company, Keenan,, 25S; ant
| 90 hn Arnnr 20 Ir-,,
| Company, Duer, 4l9.
In this last case the policy was issued from tht
Office of agency of the company in New York
although the company was Incorporated in Connecti
cut; and it was held that the construction and eff
feet of this policy were to be governed by the law
| Connecticut.
The case of HYDE as Goodnow was an action t.
recover the amount Of two premium notes given OF
| policy of insurance. Mutual Insurance Com
pany Of New York had agent residing in Ohio
! authorized to receive applications for insurance
| This agent received from party residing in Ohio
the application with the premium notes, and trans
mitted them to the office of the company in New
| Ork, where they were received and approved, anC
| where the policy executed and transmitted tC
the applicant by mall 1t was held bv the cour
that the contract was made in New York at the
Office of the company, and not in Ohio.
In the of Western os. The Genessee Mutua
Insurance Company Mutual Insurance Company
incorporated and located in New ork-had al
| agent residing in Canada, who received the appli
cation for insurance, and sent it to the company il
New Ork, who there signed the policy of insurance
and forwarded it to their agent to be delivered t.
the appIicant-it was held to be a New York con
contract, and its validity to depend upon the law
! of that State.
The Judge therefore held upon principle ant
upon authority that the policies of insurance il
these cases now being tried, to be considered
| New \ ork contracts, and to be construed and in
terpreted as such, for by section 263 of " TIN
Conflict of La,cs the rule is laid down. '.that tho
| law of he MIA Of he tn n
the nature, the obligation, and the Interpretation
of the contract" In this case, therefore, as tn,
evidence showed that the schooner '.Mary W." wa
rated below AZ in New York, what is the true
construction of these poces, in that view, and as
suming that fact to be proved2 These policies, al
though differing slightly in phrascology, are sub
stantiay the same; and the Court treated of then
| together. Now what are the principal provisions
| of the 'tSun" policy? ''The Sun Mutual Insurance
| Company do make insurance and cause Jno. s
Wright to be insured, lost or not lost at and from
Rio de Janeiro to a port in the United States, one
half of 5000 bags of coffee, laden, or to be laden
on board the good vessel vessels, &c. Begin
ming the adventure upon the said goods from and
| Immediately following the loading thereof, on
board the said vessel, and shah continue and en-
| dure until the goods shall be safely landed al
-, aforesaid. The said goods, hereby insured
are valued at SIS per bag, interest may appear "
and the policy admits ''that the company have
been paid for this insurance, by the assured, at and
after the rate of one and OHe-hdf per cent: To
turn ene9uayter Of one per cent If direct to an At
! laRtic Port To adj additional premium If b.
ressels rating lo,cer than AZ or By toreig, uesses
subject to such addition or deduction shall make
the premiums conform to the established rate al
the time the return is made to the Company. -
| The words itdlicisod are in 1critiag and not
printed, as are the other provisions of the policy.
The other clauses of the policy not material
| to this enquiry. On the back of this policv there
was this endorsement made by the defendants
| agent, in this city :-"lS56, Auqust 27. Schooner
Mary W. RIO de Jancjro to Ne,o Orleans, haIt