New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-09-29
Burned Cotton-The St. Louis Decision.

ferent courts, State and federal, for a pc
riod of about eight years, was finally dc
cided yesterday in the United States Circui
COnrt, the jury giving a verdict for plain
titfs for the sum Of Sis, $50. The Suprem
Court, after the case had gone through tn
lower courts rendered decision in favo
of the defendant A new suit was then in
stituted in the United States Circuit Court
and was argued on demurrer before Judg
Treat, whose decision was favorable to tn
| defendant. On a review by Judge Dillol
this decision was reversed, on the first o
! May last, and the. case came up regularly
for trial in that court several days ago
Justice Miller and Judge Treat Occupyin!
the bench. 1t was Submitted to the jury
yesterday, and verdict rendered as above
| stated.
The facts of the case may be briefly
stated. On the ninth Of June, 1864, large
lot of cotton was shipped from a Southern
| port on the steamer Progress, consigned tC
! Butler & Co., at Cairo. Immediately upon
| the signing of the bills Of lading for the cot
| ton On board the steamer, a memorandum
was entered on said bills, which stated that
| the same was insured in Henning & Wood.
tufts open policy of insurance in the United
| States Insurance Company. The vessel
was destroyed by fire before reaching Cairo,
and the cotton lost, The insurance com
pany refused to pay the loss, cd the ground,
chiefly, that the charter Of the company
required all contracts to be in writing, and
consequently a verbal or parol contract was
not binding on it. This defense was con
sidered good in all the courts until the case
came up il May last in the United States
Circuit Court
JUDGE DILEON's DECISION.
The decision Of Judge Dillon on that oc-
caSion was on the demurrer, and laid down
tho Low y-hi 4E,a II
jury yesterday were based. The Judge
noted three propositions, as follows:
L. That the first count of the declaration
sets forth q verbal contract by the defend
ant to insure this specific cotton; that in the
absence OF any restraining provisions in
the charter Of the defendant, or in the laws
Of the State applicable to the defendant,
parol contract of insurance is valid that
the laws OF the State respecting CORPORA
lions so far from prohibiting, allow parol
contracts TO be made, and recognizes the
validity of implied contracts by corpo-
TatiOns (stat. 1915, .. 232, sec. 81: that
%h6 charter OF the defendant, construed in
the light OF the general law, does not dis
able 1t from making binding contract of
insurance without writing. The charter
directs that 'all the conditions of policies
issued by the company shall be printed or
written or the face thereof and that Ger.
tain named officers shall sign the policies
or contracts made by order of the board of
directors but these provisions, espe ciallv |
when viewed in connection with the gene
eral law OF the State, can not be held 70 |
prevent the company from making oral |
OF insurance, nor from being held |
IN accordance Viii 80 cTe,oroi l,i9 .
ished principles of law.
= If the decision of the Supreme court
u Missouri, when this cause was before if
no an oDnosite yiov II l. ,ot [.o as nGLu
lpon this court, although entitled to orest
espect and ,,onsideratiI,n S ''NU
The contract aj1e@c6 ia ono raPofino, o.
-nneraP conTnorciai a., ~ Jnp 1ei@i my 10
he federal courts syhen' . Glf II suen cases
icialIv invoIzed mus do+or,'1i5o fo " - ~
elves, both as TO fhe noyUeI tl' 1nato ~
ontracf and IFS +rnn ,ilt'AG 1ue
$. Muscat1ne. s WaIEaca 59I. Pa,,i - w
.eiIv, Black. 436 IA. GeIno1,a .. ~
u0ne, !Vala@o IL 56 49, Vi Du-
warren Biori 800 Ein,. .4TlllD {7r WeIl IS;
'illon, 55j
In this view as 10 eHe affncq oS e7o 8ooi.
on of the State cours Rrakai,T cano 80
ut Treat. j. differs. he boIdin~ tbar it;s
inclusive .r9on fine Federal cont os ~ 80 40
over OF jhc corporation 9n make gba COW
act.
The demrrrer 60 She Srse eoune ;s 4boro.
3 The second CONNIE of1o,,o, a. o,s.o
insure .iis sDecie co+tan n 10 IN %o'
ID if las tho demurrer admits, che ara,'
anfs thereof are trna- STo ,ojaiptiI4t 49,
eause'.f action. we do not now d go +
me whether +hn pn+1.iac o,1,,ooriT,,. -, 81
oks annexed to fbn onnr, mile H22+oIYisI, h
truth of She ayarrnfn+s tbat tbart. ,1-l,
ch - contract in wri+jncas His rnHnq soss q
The statements IN pSis oo,,ns "
raj effect Of tie Uritten IoiinI 81 49, T." o'l9
-. as TO tprmini of shinrbnT. o, ;rn0 % =.
iDion- arroneona gor, III, AZ ~ "
the yuIino anon The sLirI .,oI1t $500 80 w., ~
cIara+ioD. "-'' 20 "'40 / r.
/. In Substance. the 9hfr,Y co,,no Sc c,o ! a.
OH shc ORIGINAL Uolicv of ,vnpa }955
icf, il is 3IIegod noy-sroI ~" nv 'o1Ss 81
ms and rerf "a. t9u7 ~ as OVID :.
intended TO he nn1ar.tooS a,SS a91 ,' 81
nod ;; 10 +b .+; ~ CooI anu con' .
ton in 1864. bT Butler & 70 to iT qbo. VI 81
YES, from .hc month os q}o3 ~ one, IL Ll
iro. The aIIenation - 4bof 10 ,ri. ~ w
icy. when properly eonstrmad - o - 'l Ia III
ded, extended 20 and covers nv 81. o, ~ A.
ce, effect and 0perati0n ..al sbinTo o"m w.
de BY said HenninG & VCodtIffE ~. us Us ~
other nartips in sThirf, .o;lI H. 49, ~ ~ 81
,odruff had an interpso ~ and frnrl o "
is and places mon f6n tissisai+ O ,i1, al To-
speetive of the place of sh;nynaprp, ~. ~ hI
Of destination ion '''e' % SH'''nSA' % the NJ NJ
o this construction of She ooYic,, NJ -r,ro 10 10
S55, we can not give our sanction ~ st tn
not mean one thi9a in 1861 and anntbar cIf
1855. Where terms of nolc9, are. +1ot WE
II, we may resort TO usage. and fbe Ga
rsf, of DEALING f,nder IL 81 H. 80 ~ an
bic Us to ascertain what the narties SCI
mt by the use of such terms hut 10 f,Iro int
r. - o''~-' 90 1l'7' "4' '4o 'ur" nv nv
7 its terms we think iS plain chat St. ans
rs rs vas y. 70 De one OF termln Of all risks reg