The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-11
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Liabilities of Accidental Insurance Com.
pauies-Responsibility of Pnrtners-The
blanchard Wood Bending Patent-CoIlec.
ton Of Bills of Exchange.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 1859.
No. 200. The Travellers Insurance Company Us.
Isabella Mosley Error to the Circuit Court for the
Northern District OF MinOts.-Tne defendant in
error brought her action in the court below on an
accidental policy Of insurance issued BY the COM
pany for the life OF her husband to be paid to her.
The defence was that the death Of the insured was
not the result OF an accident, but had been caused
by disease. The evidence showed that Mosley had
fallen down stairs leading to the yard. In the rear
Of his premises, and received conclusion OF the
brain, from which he died Ia few days alter. The
court below admitted the declarations of the de-
ceased ct the time Of the injury and during his illness
thereafter as to the cause OF his injuries and the
nature OF his sufYerings. No one saw the fall and
there was consequently no other testimony on that
point. The evidence received to establish the fact
found by the jury, stated above, objected TO
hearsay ana nadmisslbe and the objection being
overruled, exception was taken ana the ruling
brought here for review, the insurance company
Insisting the point that 1t was hearsay evidence;
and contending for The sufficency OF clause IN the
policy requiring the proof TO be satisfactory to the
company and the right OF the company TO reject 1t If
not to them satisfactory Inc defendant In error
maintains that the representations OF sick person,
OF the nature, symptoms and effects OF the malady
under which he Is iaborng, made al the time, are
received as original evidence, and that the principle
is well settled. q. b. sansum, for plaintiff in error;
Elliott Anthony for defendant.
NO. 20l. Be,Vanst,a II Murphy 60 al, Plaintiffs IN
Error Us. DdUtd ktUi,1gen, Error 10 TIE circuit
court Of the Northern District or WinOfs.-Thls
action grows out OF the failure OF the firm composed
OF the plaintiffs in error, who, firm, were IN
debted to the defendant in error claimed by him.
The defence was that the Indebtedness was an 1ndi-
vidua liability of Murphy, the first named plaintiff
IN error who had absconded, and not the JOINT oDli
cations OF the firm. The evidence was conflicting
but the trial resulted In favor OF the defendant here
plaintiff below. The cause IL brought here on eXcep-
lions to the ruling OF the court al the trial. ana the
questions presented are purely or TACT. Case sub
nptted on the printed points or counsel: John n
Jewett for plaintiffs in error; Gookn * Roberts for
defendants In error.
No. 2os. A. Y. Blanchard ct al. Us. Antoine Put
man et a. Error TO TIE Circuit court or The southern
District az IUinois-Thfs Is an action to recover
damages for an alleged infringement OF patent for
an Improvement In bending wood,n granted to the
plalntlis' assQnor in December, 1s4s. and ressued
IN November, 1889. The defendants claimed q
license for the process used by them under patent
granted to one Morris in March, 1856, and ressued
In May, 1862 The machine OF the plantffs Is what
Is known as the rotary form machine, and that OF
the defendant what technically called the 'sta-
tonary form machine;n and upon the question Of
infringement the issue was brought down TO the
single point whether, IN view OF the state OF
the art, plaintifrs' patent could be fairy con-
strued TO cover machines for bending wood
in which stationary forms were employees
The DEFENDANTS machine contained, among others,
all the features which the plaintiffs assgnor
declared 1t was the object OF his Invention
to avoid; and upon Its who.e case as presented by
the evidence the jury found for the defendants and
their verdict declared there had been no infringe
ment. From tho Judgment entered on this verdict
writ OF error taken TO this Court, the PLAINTIFF In
error relying upon alleged the ruling OF the
Court on questions OF evidence. q. M. Lee, for
plalntis error ). S. Fisher Court Of Patents for
defendants In error.
NO. 2OS. ChlC0pee Bank, plaintiffs In Error ps,
Seventh National Bank OF Philudeiphta Error 10 The
circuit court FOR the District or Massachusetts,
This act brought to recover for neggenty fail
ing take proper steps to collect bill oil exchange
sent by plaintiffs 10 defendants for collection. me
evidence stated IN the bill OF exceptions shows that
the letter containing the bill slipped through rack
in the top OF the desk OF the defendants cashier at
the time Of Its receipt and remained there undls-
covered for over two months and that shortly after
the bill should have been paid the plaintiffs tele-
graphed TO the defendants to know II II had been
paid and received for reply: mot yet received"
Every effort was made through the Post ONCE and
otherwise to ind the letter, but 1t was not till
month later that 1t wis found In q waste paper
drawer under the desk of the cashier OF the defen
dants The acceptors proving worthless on presenta-
lion, and the drawer and endorser being discharged
In consequence or The want OF demand and protest,
or other proper notice, this suit was brought, ana
resulted In verdict for the plaintiffs. The Chlcopee
entered upon the verdict was based upon erroneous
views OF the law and the question now Is, were the
prior parties absolutely discharged by what was
done, or omitted at the Chicopee Bank ltls nslseu
here, In support OF the WRIT tnat the psor parties on
bill accepted payable at particular bank, II tnelr
acccptor rs In default, and they ore duly notlheu,
cannot defend themselves against tho owner OF
the BILL unless IL appears That some acs or
omission Of the owner Or hS agent IA Soma WAY