The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-04-01

XaxHtton OF Undivided Gains OF Corporations
Authority ef Insurance Agents to Make spec
eial Contracss.
WASHINGTON. March 81, 1871.
No l21 c. Brafna d, collect r. de- rs. Henry
6. Huoodrd.-Error TO the Supreme Court Of Errors
sf the State OF Connecticut During The year 1864
two JOINT stock corporations located Come, Iicut
ei wach the defendant In error Is u stakeholder,
having made certain amount Of money hey oEd
tneii expenses applied the surplus IN paying debts
incurred In previous years, and IN purchasing
raw material. machinery and real estate necessary
70 Inc management Oh Their business; ana aiter
oisburslus for such purposes, divided the balance
amsng theil Stockholders. The defendant In error
uiade return o. these dividends az part vi ms income,
but the answer ella med mat he was, In addition.
nabie 10 pa, an Income tax on such proportion or
the entire amount made, without deductng such
extend lure. MS stock bore 10 the whole capital
1his question was presented To me Court below. and
the Judgment as iVr the stocknodei, wno sued 10
lccover the amount pad, having pad u under pro-
test Inc government brings the case here insist
1ng-nrst that uuer the act of July 90. the action
h barred, and second taat the tax legally ex-
Acted. AZ Is said that Dv true construction ~ TIE
internal revenue acts the Intention appears 10 TAX
IA,lons, ds well Us those which are divided among
the stockholders. The defendant In error maintains
that the expenditures 50 mace 10y the corporations
were NOT gains aud pronts. and were not therefore
haOie 10 tie taxed.
No l2d. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company Us.
kGadn Spencer aud Gdten Spsncer.-Error to the
Circuit Court for Indiana. This was al action upon
vembeT, 1857. ior year and renewed and contln-
ued In force by new contract for year from Its
expiration. Al the time the policy was taken out,
rs CLAIMED by the insured they asked OF the agent
and obtained pctmIsSlon w retain sale cerla,n
Keys vi gunIowder then among their goods, and
that this TACT was Known TO the company before the
renewal and extension of the policy. l. \ also al
legged thai The same agent subsequently, insured the
pnr,i LII another company Tor 1urLher sum and
that that TACT was also Known to the company before
the renewal aad extens On OF the policy. The
Court charged the jury that II these facts
were found bv them then The provisions Of
tne policy against Keeping gulpowder sale ana
against the goods beng also insured In other COM
assured were entitled 10 recover on their polcy.
The verdict and Judgment were Ccordngly Tor the
Insured. aud the company bring this writ maintain
lhK That The charge was error and that the COM
pany should not ue held 10 have notice o. lacts
AJegel, because they were known To the agent
Agents, IL II said should LOT be allowed ior their
gan 10 make new contracts Tor the company. The
cOuli hot be changed by the acts or words of the
O&ent In This case the agent acted for two COM
panies. ami he should not be held blnd tie COM
Ianies rs ~ notice, except To those done for
each.
No. 127. Duni0r Il al rs. Btnz.-Error OF the Cir
cult Court Tor the District u Louisiana. This was
an action 10 recover certain lands in the parish OF
Ascension, La, which had been sold at sherinrs
sale 10 satisfy Judment the ground the sale
was VOID Tor irres Ilarites, and upon the further
allegation that the Marshal should have 10 lowed the
mode of proceedings of the state Courts III SUCH
that as the rule, The questions are 10 eai and