Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-27

risks on the Inflated United
states and America, has been held in this
city. Nineteen Companies were fsDr-
sented, al OF this city. the Louisville
companies not being here. A great di.
veTsily OF views was expressed ~ to ,us
llsbiiity OF the uaGerRrlters Tor tsa
sustained, and, feitez to Egrss ARC =
themselves, they referred t6e matter -
the following legal gentlemen: Mess-s.
Stanley Matthews, Gnolson aai E0ad y.
The dImcuity in the casssseuastO BE- ab5gs
this: Inc steamboat c2mesuy, the old
mail line, claim tha -aOts AMOUNT ssr
which the two boats were insu ed,
namely $40, Oo0 hut the policies beiag
Issued for fire oily, the Insurance. eeEa-
paniss claim that The los YVES not all &C.
casioned by fire. The matter OF fact
point To be decided will be: How much
damage was OeeasiOnsd by tbs collision;
and ia connection with this viii sriss the
legal question whether ths fre, which
followed the collision, sgas not SO ueces-
saFily the result Of that collision as ID
invalidate the fire poiicies. Pie quss-
ton OF csrelsssness, or wiitfal imprOpri-
ely, on the part OF the pilots, viii also
enter q the consideration o. the uua-
pires. Both parties will endeavor, II
possible, to avoid carrying the case into
court.
The same paper publishes the following
DECISION in marine insurance: The Sc
cuCity Insurance Company Of Nav York
20. the Central Insurance Company.
Judge Taft disposed Of an interesting
question arising upon a demurrer to the
answer in this case. The action vas on
a policy OF reinsurance on the stsamer
Esther Buf1ngton, which vas lost while
navigating the Usage river 10 the State
OF Missouri. The plsintih was sued and
compslled 20 pay the loss, and the de-
fsndant refused to pay.
The defendant ssys the plaintiff falsely
represented said steamer IN have haen
dolly inspected, surveyed, licensed sDd
enrolled IS required by law, and th2tif
the facts had been EnswG to defendants
tn - not have Insured.
a demurrer YVES inteTpOsad or ths
grOccd that the misrepresentation were
not msteriRi 10 the risk. II Wss aOt a.
iegeJ "A the answer that line steamboat
Was intended 20 TUn il sDy other State
han Missouri, rpd 10 inspection OK 5
vessel YVES necessary that usvigatss only
the waters OF = single State. In the ar
gument it was stated that the Esther
Burlington did Jun il the Missouri only
TO which il was replied that the policy
gave the privilege Of navigating the Mis-
SOuFl ana OIlOt WHICH NCulG hot 1ll1L
her to that State. Notwithstanding, g
the Inspection and enrolment would be
unnecessary, unless the boat was navi-
eating the waters OF mere team L
State, the want Of inspection and en-
roilmsnt did not expose her to danger
from violation OF the navigation acts OF
the United States. BY material facts
they were 20 understand Fuch as would
reasonably iuhdence tbs mind c! the IL
.surer. The fact Of her not passing III
speCii0a might Influence some insGrersI
but the court could not suppose that IN
Itself It wsa material to the Eisk. The
datsadsns puts his claim on the ground
that, by express representation 70 the
aesndaot, the fact vas made msierisli
Jue he could not So regard It. DenurTer
sustained.