New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-03
THE COURTS.

|
pei James Graham, State Auditor, to issu
to them his warrant for $l8.l67.
They represent that on March IL, 1865
Governor Baker executed to Charles JOne
and John H. Huger lease of the Stat
Penitentiary, at Baton Rouge, which wa
subsequently approved by General Han
cock and ratified by the Legislature; that
in 1870, the Legislature substituted the re
lators in the place of the original lessee
that, under the direction Of the board o
control appointed by Governor Warmoth
REALTORS made certain building improve
ments in and around said State Peniten
tiary, to the amount of $I6, l67, for which
amount the State Auditor has refused to is
sue his warrants. The rule nisi has beer
made returnable on Tuesday, March S.
The motion for a new trial in.the case O
Ihomassin VS.. Rivera, IN which the noted
''WOrdick for Tantet" was rendered. wa.
argued and submitted to Judge Dlbble yes
terday morning.
Charles N. Prudhomme va. Salamandel
Fire Insurance Company. This case wa:
decided by the Seventh District Ccur,
yesterday. Petitioner sues to recover on q
policy Of $4,000 issued by defendant on a
stock OF goods in plaintiffs store, i'll Cou
shatta, Red River parish, Louisiana, which
on tie thirteenth OF August, 1871, was
dest Dyed by fire.
|
taken out ny Ben Toleando, commission
merchant OF New Orleans, in his own name,
| but as agent for plaintiff, to which defend
ant answered that plaintiff could have 10
| insnrable interest in the premises, as the
policy was not issued in his name.
The court in passing upon the case, said:
The policy is issued in the name of Ben
Toledano, bat it is clearly shown that in
procuring the insurance he did so as agent
n IaI nf
instructions from him. Even had he en-
tirely omitted to disclose the name of his
principal. still the policy would inure to the
benefit of that principal upon his subse-
quent adoption of it even after loss had
occurred; but the plaintiffs case is far from
being SO extreme. The application shows
that the insurance on the stock itself and
the stock is expressly described as that of
{. N. Prudhomme. So it is clear that the
company had specific notice of what was
intended, and that ToledanO was acting for
plaintiff. The terms Of application corrobo-
rate TOledanO's testimony, and What is still
more satisfactory, Toledanos testimony
itself is sustained by the correspondence
between him and plaintiff written at the
time. Whether Toledano had an interest at
the time as a creditor in Prudhom mes pros
perity, and desired that his debtor should
be safe from loss by fire, is immaterial, for
the subject matter of insurance, and his in
terest in Prudhomme's solvency was sub
sidiary and indirect, and can not control the
main intent, which was An insurance to Sc
cure PrudhOmme against loss. This view
is still further corroborated by the fact that
upon demand made by Prudhomme upon
the company. no objection was made to
paying him on the ground Of his not being
the party insured but only on the ground
that the agent has failed to advise the com
pany that he (Prudhomme) kept his goods
tor sale in room of a public hotel" This
was the sole objection made to paying the
loss to the plaintiff himself. 1t is therefore
clear that tho company conceded the fact
that they had contracted tor Prudhomme's
benefit, and the present denial OF this fact
is an afterthought.
On the objection founded on the onis-
sion to disclose the fact that the store was ,
kept in the room of a hotel,' it sutiices 10 /
say that no custom, or law, or condition III I
the policy or communication of any rule to ,
the plaintiff made known to him or his ,
agents, that any such disclosure was neces- /
sary. or that such a fact would make any
difference whatever as to the acceptance Of
the risk or the rate. !
In regard to the noD-payment of the pre-
MUM, conceding that the taking of Tole- !
dano's note did not, under the circunl-
stances, novate plaintiffs indebtedness for
that premium, and that that note must be
regarded as equally due by plaintiff (which
think is the easel, still the fact of its non
payment does not cancel the policy. The
giving of credit for the premium, aud the
delivery OF the policy was waiver of the
'lause relative TO the payment as a prece-
lent or sIspensivc condition.
The condition became necessarily reso-
utory one, which gave the defendant the
light to elect whether they would sue for /.
peclflc performance, i. G., to recover the
Or for dissolution of the contract
2Oil, 2642). They have elected 10 sue for
he premium, and have in no wise alleged
Is non payment as Il ground even of de-
ence; nor have they made it the basis of
ny suit TO annul the contract. Judgment
or the plaintiff.
In the case of Thomas G. Eager VS.. the
'iremen's Insurance Company and the
'ellcan Mutual Insurance Company, the
curt has given judgment for plaintiff
A resident OF Cooks Landing, in the par
'l of Pointe COnpee, has fled suit in the
ixth District Court against the steamer
Wade Hampton, claiming 10000 damages
1r this: He AYERS that on the twenty-ninth
April, 1871, he was passenger on the
teamer Wade Hampton, when, upon the
oat landing at his place of destination, he
roceeded to go ashore on the stage-plank,
hen, before he could reach terra tir,na, he
card something coming after him, and
lrning, he beheld a hogshead of sugar roll
lg down the plank toward him. Before he
Duld escape the hogshead overlook him,
nj coming against him, knocked him
own, and SO severely injured him that he
as laid up for more than five months. dur
X which time he was so thoroughly iuca-
acitated from pursuing his business as
,orekeeper that he was compelled t., close
is place OF business. For ali of which pc
lniary loss, together with physical INJURIES .
e claims the aforesaid $4,000. He claims
nat the accident was due to the negligence
the officers OF the boat in not exercising .
roper care and discretion in the manage -,
cnt of affairs. ..
Before a jury Yesterday morning was
led a the ease Of Merle VS.. A. DubuCiet. ,
tate Treasurer, in which plaintiff claims )
f5Go Inc facts III the matter appear from
le records as follows: 6
Merle being the holder OF a number Of >
proceeded one fine day to the {
office to obtain the cash. Upon
his warrants he was informed .
lat there was no money and he could not
, paid. While there the State tax COZ +,
ctor came in with a large amount of {
uney as collections for deposit in the :,
easury. Handing over the funds with I
md, he presented with the other a number
warrants, on which he drew immediately :,
e amount deposited. =
Merle claims that. being first on hand, he
as entitled to be first paid. He further ,
ore AYERS that aiterward, being compelled !
sell his warrant on the street, he suffered J,
reduction of $500 from what he would :,
We obtained had the Treasurer paid him,
he should have done, at the time of re- {
ivlng the funds in question. He has, =
erefore, brought suit to recover loss uc- 6,
stoned by the act Of defendant Il
The city is sued in the Fourth District 81
urt by several property-owners in the {,