The New York herald., 1871-11-02
tn E CGU r T S.
ALLEGED vislaaisa q ths Hsurslisy Esvs-En'
DsFtant csuAtsrisiting cass-Csavistisa ds
Osuntsrsttr- Rspsstsrs IN Court -Iitigs
don oa 0sad Dspons-Dssaasus-
Huuinsm h he 0sneral asaisns ~
0Durafisss OF the Income Tax-What Cssss'
sasss . Waiver In INSURANCE rs'ioses.
.o ~ 30 sE n. WASHINGTON. Nov !, 1871.

0-r~ss>,~ ~ sh~ Ipcome Tax-WhAs Ceassi-
- e>.~~ = waiver in Insurance Psiioies.
81 a. 800 80 b WASHINGTON. Nov I, 1871.
~ lsk Rscsey us Williams, coAasors Ac--
usaosss % Division from tine orcuit Court FOR the
p,.rr,cs of indiana Tins n suit TO recover the
vum Of s5G 70. alleged to have been Illegally ex-
pessd or Richey on certain railroad shares income
az, under rne Internal Revenue laws. Upon argu-
mens Of demurrer IN the Court below the Judges
were divided on th following question.
as s.cs ses iSrtn LOTT n,a,nn sns 'ssus s, invSvsd;m -
Lafayette ana indianapolis Railroad company, de-
eeviDxd IA the declaration and pies, was the LIST
4ay oil January 1861, worth only e87 81 per share,
Making his whole eignIy-fouT shares worth only
4sl4o, as stated in the plea; and II The bonds al
sDr stock WERE when received and within the year,
= ssssa s spsns ns ils NE y. % he Is
sends, amounting TO slz, ,6io, to nave been
segardo0 - gain, pr0nt or income OF
.ss plaintiff wh the meaning 1n1se Of v0sS enc s In
M menti0Ded was assessed so as 90 render the
AIeI sum OF any part oi !t taxable q lncomes Ihe
GolicttOr General maintains the Affirmation OF this
proposition. contending that as the plainu9 con.
esdes asuossantial gam Of sla 600 whether y was
derived rom she sale OF his stocks or from excnange
sherc0, or from any otner source, II ls within the
msernal Revenue law III force where the tax was
iuuseaBed, the plaintiff main ntainng tire contrary
No. lsa Brookivs LIE Insurance Company us.
kSuer-Error to the Circuit Court FOR the District
Of Maryland. The plaiatsn below defendant here)
sued policy OF insurance FOR the sum OF 5000 on
she lie OF husband, made as stated In the policy
In confederation Of The representations and agree
nent contained In the application therefor and OF
the sum Of $2j4 e5 paid. One provision WAS that II
there was any default In payment OF the premium
the policy should be void; anu another was that
20 agent OF the company was authorized
o. permitted 10 WAVE, alter or change any
- tue provisions Of the policy. The poiCy
N tins care was delivered 70 the assured hy mail
3gnaturc, anda nose 70 him from the agents lat ST
Leols wriuen upon receipt to The effect that they
woIe FORBIDDEN % deliver policies until premium
received aud that no p0icy Is IN force until paid
ior. Ihe assured signed the hotcs and returned
hem, Tut . cash payment, which Was TO have been
RaAd by friend at St Louis was never received by
sne agents or COMPANY Upon the death OF the as
s1red the company declined 70 pay, upon the
ground that the entire premium had not been
tatd. ON the trtai Of the suit one OF the
Akcnfs testified that they sent the receipts
- thc deceased because they had con.
udencc that they could get the cash payment
% the friend IN Sc. LOuIs whenever they called Tor
u: and the President OF the company testified mat
the policy was never treated force by tue COM
pAny. The question was, whether there mad been
waiver as 20 the cash payment and the Court below
peid that there had, and the judgment was for the
faAintln IL s here contended that the Court erred
= iH rulings, and II the deceased dld not believe
here was waiver (Which II IL claimed correspond
ence with him showedl as TO the cash payment
mere was none. The questions made as to the
uuthoftty OF the agents. under the policy. are also
o0isidered in the argument.