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


| MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF New York.
Attachment policies of insurance, issued in the
superior Court for the city of Baltimore, and re-
moved into the Circuit Court of the United States
lor TINS district, under the act of Congress.
These two eases were tried together, and
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 10
under the direction and instruction of the Court
Ihcy were very fully and ably argued before the
| Court (Judge Giles on the PRAYERS by r. J Brent
for the plaintiff and Mcssrs. Cutting (of New York;
and Nelson for the Defendants. Judge Giles opin-
ion fully reviewed all the facts in the case and the
authorities cited by the counse but as his oninion
was not III writing we are 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 compa-
MES Incorporated by the State 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 were delivered to the plaintiff The
plaintiff in both cases, had given to the said agents
his promissory notes for the premium mentioned in
said policies and in the 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-
sdered as contracts made in the city of New York
or as made in the city Of Baltimore? For when
you have ascertaned at which place the contract is
to be considered as made it is to be construed and
Interpreted by the law and the usagcs of that place.
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
commended that these policies 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 an important ques-
tlonln the cases. because on the books OF the lnsu-
rance Companies in New FORK, the schooner "NIarv
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., - Peters,
5l9, the principal point decided was that bank
chartered in Georgia could purchase a 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, for his faithfully accounting at the
proper Department at Washington, and that there
fore the liabilities of the sureties were to be gov
", and
by the civil law of louisiana The case of Zachary
d Turner rs. Boyle in same volume, page G35, was
one OF payment made in Louisiana by plaintiffs
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 nsolvent laws of Maryland.
In the case of Hazards administrators u.s. The
New England Marine Insurance Company, Peters,
557, the point decided that the letter on ap-
plication for insurance. written in New York where
Hazard resided although addressed to the deten-
dants, company incorporated in Massachusetts,
and having their Office in Boston, was to be tested
rs to the truth Gifts representations by the custom
as to the extent of coppering vessels in New York
and not by the custom in Boston. Judge Story in
his great work on ''The Conflict Of Lacs," section
27S, SAYS: "a policy of insurance executed in Eur
land on French ship for the French owner on a
voyage from one French port to another, would be
treated as an 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 ofthe
drawees. These bills are signed by the merchant in
Ireland, Endorsed with his own name and dated
from place in Ireland, and are transmitted to
correspondent in England, with authority to him to
ill up the remaining parts ofthe instrument The
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 Irish
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;" and
analogous principles have been recognized in the
following cases Wolsey. rs. Bailey, 7 Foster, IN.
H. 2l7; Smith as. Smith, ibid 2l4; Davis as
Coleman, IL Ireden 3O3 But this very question
has been settled in two cases by the Court of Ap-
peals of New York; and in one BY the Superior
Court in the same State, in the cases of Hyde as
Goodnow, COmstock, 2G4; Western as. The Genes
see Mutual Insurance Company, 2 Keenan,, 25S; and
St John rs. The American Mutual Life Insurance
Company, Duer, 40.
In this last the policy was issued from the
office of agency of the company in New York
although the company was ncorporatedin Connecti-
cut; and it was held that the construction and eff
feet of this policy were to be governed by the law of
Connecticut.
The case of HYDE rs Goodnow was an action to
recover the amount Of two premium notes given on
policy of insurance. A 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, and
where the policy executed and transmitted to
the applicant by mail. 1t was held by the court
that the contract made in New York at the
office of the company, and not in Ohio.
In the case of Western as. The Genessee Mutual
Insurance Company Mutual Insurance Company
incorporated and located in New ork-had an
agent residing in Canada, who received the appl-
cation for insurance, and sent it to the company in
New York, who there signed the policy of insurance
=
the applicant-it was held to be a New York con-
contract, and its validity to depend upon the laws
of that State.
The Judge therefore held upon principle and
upon authority that the policies of insurance in
these eases now being tried were to be considered
New Y ork contracts, and to be construed and in
terpreted as such, for by section 263 Of q The
Conflict Of LG'cs, the rule is laid down, 'that the
law Of the place Of the contract is to govern as to
the nature, the obligation, and the Interpretation
of the contract" In this case, therefore, as the
evidence showed that the schooner '.Mary W. was
rated below AZ, in New York what is the true
construction of these policies, in that view, and as
suming that fact to be prOyed2 These policies al
though differing slightly in phraseology, sub
stantally the same; and the Court treated of them
together. Now what are the principal provisions
of the ''Sun" policy? ''The Sun Mutual Insurance
Company do make insurance and cause Jno. S.
Wright to be insured lost not lost at and from
Rio de Janeiro to 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 at
-, aforesaid. The said goods, hereby insured,
are valued at SIS per bag interest may APPEAR"
and the policy admits ''that the company have
after the rate of and one-hdIf per cent: To
turn sne-quarter Of per cent. # direct to At
lantic Port. 70 add additional premium If BIZ
resscls rating looer than AZ, or by foreigil uesseIs
subject to such addition or deduction as shall make
the premiums conform to the established rate at
the time the return is made to the Company.
The words iahcisca are in ,7ritiag and not
printed, as are the other provisions of the policy
The other clauses of the policy are not material
to this enquiry. On the back of this policy, there
this endorsement, made by the defendants
agent, in this city :-'1S56, August 81 Schooner
'Mary w. Rio de Janero to Ne,c Orleans, on half
cargo, lS3O bags eobee ralued at SIS per bag not to
attach If ressel be prored unseaportby. "-S1G47O.
Now the counsel for the defendants conended, that
this coffee never covered by the said policy,
because it was loaded on board vessel rating be-
low Az and the correspondence showed that no
additional premium had been agreed upon between
the parties, and that by the true construction of
the policy, the defendants had the right to fix the