Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1871-10-31
Gulliford 60 ~ VS.. Security Fire In
s., Ince Company.

The caso entitled NJ above, and
which was disposed Of in favor OF the
plaintiffs at the late term of the Cir
cult Court, was one of the most inn
portant and ably contested that came
before the court. Both sides Of the
Gaze were ably argued-for the plain
THIS by Geo G. HAzelton and for the
defendant by 0 b Thomas, ofPrairie
du Chen, and w p Dewey. Below
we give Judge NILS charge to the
jury, which is based upon the inn
portant testimony adduced in the
trial. The sane would have appear
ed in the Herald several weeks since
had not the crowd Of news matters
prevented IL:
JoHN GULLIFoRD TT. Al
IS. Charge 10 Jury.
SECURITY FIRE INs. Co.
The deiendent, Company, on the 18th day
Of May, 1865 insured the dwelling house sit
uated on land then belonging to Jane GULL
ford, in the town Of Marion, against loss or
damage by fire for the period of three years
from date Of policy. The insurance was in
The sum Of 81 400. If the plaintiffs recover,
the verdict cannot exceed that sum, although
the value OF the dwelling NAV have been 81
600. The dwelling house was burned the lst
day Of March, 1871
On me llh day of November, 1870, Jane
Gullliord conveyed the land and dwelling
house TO the plaintiffs, John and Farley GULF
ford. Mrs. Gulliford did not on that day Sign
her name 20 the blank form on the policy, nor
does II appear when she signed her name
thereto. Mr. Wooley filled up the blanks in
I've assignment after the burning Of the house.
There is blank form Of an approval or con-
sent to the assignment endorsed on the policy,
which was never signed by Mr.. Contoit, the
agent,
The policy by its terms declares that it
shall be void in case Of its assignment, unless
there is a written consent on the policy and
signed by some proper agent This was
clearly not done, Do the facts proven IN
this case authorize recovery, notwithstand-
ing the failure Of the agent to endo Sc such
consent?
When the agents power appears upon the
policy itself, parties holding the policy must
take notice Of the limitation Of that aut hority,
and how il is 10 be exercised. If the agent in
this case did nothing more than make a verbal
agreement to endorse his consent on the poli-
cy when brought TO him, aui declared he
could no, give his consent but by such endorse
meut, the plaintiffs cannot recover. Parties
TO whom policies are assigned, containing this
provision, must see 10 1t that the consent is
actually endorsed on the policy, unless such
written consent is withheld through some
fraud or mistake not attributable to the as
signees OF the policy.
L is, however, cOnteudel IN this case, that
the agent having full knowledge of the
conveyance Of the property TO the plaintiffs,
and of the assignment or intended assignment
dorsing his consent on the policy for the reason
that both parties supposed the policy was lost
as a substitute for the written consent on the
policy that he wrote the name Of the asslgnees
under the name Of the assignor, Mrs. Guilt
ford, in his entry book, telling the plaintiffs
the matter was alright, and tina he would n-
form the company of the transfer OF the as
sgnment. Ii you are satisfied of these facts,
think the plaintiffs would have the right to
ask the Court as part Of their relief, TO compel
the agent the were party to endorse his con-
sent on the policy. Under such state of
facts you may regard the consent as endorsed
on the policy, and fad for the plaintiffs so far
as this objection is concerned.
In reference 10 Hr. Contoits authority to
make written assent to the assignment Of poll
icies Of the insurance, so far as third persons
are concerned, il is sufficient for them 10 show
that the agent held himself out to the world as
having such authority, and habitualy exer-
cising il in the course Of his business as in
surance agent for the company. Persons
dealing with an agent are not bound by secret
Instructions from the principal Of which they
had no notice.
If the understanding between Mr.. Contoit
and the plaintiffs was. that if the policy was
found il should without unreasonable delay be
brought to the agent for the endorsement OF
his consent thereon if the plaintiffs have fail
ed in this respect they canno; recover, unless
they were prevented from searching for, and
presenting the policy to Mr.. Contoit by as
su5ances from him that the assignment was
accepted by the company and ii was all right.
J. + MILLS, Judge.