The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-10-01
COURT or APPEALS.
A Life Insurance Case-Important Question.
Rnfara Renc

Before the Fun Bench.
The Hope Mutual LIE Insurance Company, Re-
spondents, rs. Dennis Perkins, 4ppellaat-Ths case
which involves important question to life insu-
rance companies. was heard yesterday. This CON-
pany was incorporated by law OF the State OF Con-
necticu In May 1s4e. BY the charter subscriptions
Tor policies TO the amount of $780, 900 were required
before organization. This clause being complied
with, the company organized and commenced busi-
ness March 10, ls4s. In April, Isi7 an agree
ment was entered into by various parties to guar
antee payment OF losses, and In pursuance OF this
agreement note for $500 was given by the defend
ant The company having failed In 1891, and being
put into the hands OF receiver he was sued on this
note and decision rendered against him. An APP
peal having been taken on mis- part was argued to-
day that the company was not authorized to raise
guarantee fund In this manner. and that II the power
TO do 80 was taken by II under an assumption of
power not granted IL was void as corporate act,
want OF mutually Of any sufficient consideration.
Decision reserved.
Responsibility OF Masters TO Employees.
Lucy A. Warner, Admtntstrltrir, de-, 10 5,onC an
us. TIE Erie Rdfl,cov Company, Appeiidats.-
case was before the Court an appeal from the
general term OF the Supreme Court In the Eighth
District (Bufralo, N Y.b where the case was tried
before Justice Daniels on March !, 1867 The plain
tifrs husband while In the employ Of the defendant
was killed by the falling OF q train upon which he
was engaged baggage mas ter through the eastern
span OF bridge over the Conhocton river at Pante
Post, on May = 1888 and abe sued to recover
tained by the death Of her husband. The case
went TO the jury upon the sole question
swhether the Board OF Directors Of the de-
PENDANTS, in the exercise OF such reas BILE
care, skin and diligence a. might properly be re-
quired from them, ought not to have known that
the bridge was unsafe. And that II such was the
fact and the bridge was maintained Ia It's unsafe
condition and thereby the accident occurred the
defendants were liable.
The Defendants counsel asked the court to In
sruc the jury that In order 10 charge the defendants
1t was necessary TO show that the decay In the
bridge, II II fell from decay, known by some
tice otherwise TO the president and directors The
refused TO instruct the jury without qualiG
cation. Exception was then taken 10 this ruling.
The plaintiff got q verdict for $50 damages. A
motion was then made for a new trial, but was de-
MED by the Court.
Among other points raised by the defendants they
claimed that they were not liable. rs the deceased
was Their employe and that there was no evidence
showing any ON ss.on 10 perform any DUTY they
owed 10 the deceased as their employe. they also
claimed non.liabnity, "a the deceased was their
employe unless the evidence established negligence
their part as his master and also that they were
not lab Tor the negligence Of the fellow servants Of
the deceased.
The arguments OF counsel on both sides having
been heard tue Court reserved Its decision.