New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-30

privilege xhic1 nc ~ intsnltst q s.
STOW upon him, and he complied with its
requisites. He has twice changed the
ncSure OF his original Indebtedness BY
taxing from Archinard, upon the compile
non o. the building, ID September. 1869,
I'VE notes, payable at different dates, which
ne has subsequently exchanged for the
tnree notes nov held by Nicholson and the
notes are secured BY the mortgage granted
by Archinard on the fifteenth Of August,
1871. The acceptance of this mortgage
shows that he had no faith in his pretended
privilege, which, had it existed, was of q
superior rank to the mortgage, so far as it
aftected the building.
1t 10 true that he expressly stipulated
tnst TINS new mortgage would not create q
novatlon of the original Indebtedness. But
y vas the second change to which that in
0eptedness had been subjected, and it may
have been novated in spite Of his opinion on
that subject
~ ie, however, unnecessary to pass on the
question of nOvation. because it is not ope-
rated by the act of the fifteenth of March,
io"V, nor BY the acceptance by Jamison Of
Archlnard's notes in September, 1869; then
Jamls0ns subrogees would stand simply on
the rights which may result from the regis
ny OF his claims on the twenty-seventh OF
september, 1869, which registry is subse-
9uent to the vendors mortgage and that of
the Merchants Insurance Company.
But am OF opinion that this last registry
was OF no validity. 1t could not cure the
effect OF the fatal omission and neglect on
the part Of Jamis0n, in not reducing. his
contract to writing and causing it to be re-
corded within six days, as article 324O OF
the Civil Code at that time Q86S) required
4 M az oil n.
rogees have no other rights but those re-
sulting from the mortgage act of the fifteenth
OF March, 1870, which are inferior to those
of MarmilliOn and Goldth ate, who are to
be paid concurrently first, and of the Mer-
chants Mutual Insurance Company, which
is to be paid next; end, if anything is left,
then the balance Of the proceeds of the
payment-Of Nicholson and the Crescent Mu-
tual Insurance Company, concurrently.
Judgment accordingly.
Seventh District Court.
Judge Coilens reaches the following con-
illusions upon the following case:
Harriet Hillebrant, widow, vs.. Mutual
Aid Insurance Company-The application,
but not the policy, contains q condition
that the policy shall be forfeited in case of
Behrles' death from alcoholic drink" The
direct cause of his death was dropsy. The
opinion that this dropsy was probably
brought on by the abuse Of Intoxicating
liquors is speculative, and. it is admitted,
might be erroneous in fact.
Then it only induces an indirect or re-
mote cause Of the disease Of which the |
patient died. It is the immediate cause of |
death which must be considered under the |
term OF the policy in order to work fer |
fixture. s-s.-
But in procuring the insurance Behrle de- |
clared that he was "sober and temperate, |
and had always been So" The evidence |
forces the conviction that he must have been
previously an inebriate. The policy is,
therefore, forfeited for concealment and |
misrepresentation. Nothing short of proofs |
that the defendants were made aware of 1
Behrle's previous habits, and that these /
habits had been discontinued, could rebuff /
the effect Of the proof as it stands in the /
record on this point. Nevertheless, it may
be; and as there are indications that plain
tiff might make proof of disclosure to the
Behrle's previous intemperance, will only
give judgment as in case of nonsuit.
A. Ross & Co. VS.. the Merchants Mutual |,
Insurance Company. In this case Judge
Collens, in deciding it, held as follows: A
who supplies another with goods
and with money to buy goods for store,
has an insurable interest in the store to
IAC CAtCut VI ulS SUOuS anu duVauco6. he |
need not have special partnership or lien
on the store, nor is he required to show that
the particular goods he furnished were in
the store at the time of loss by fire. The
danger of loss by the destruction of the
store and business on which he relied for
payments is sufficient interest in re to sup
port his policy. =
Besides, in this case, there was at the time
the insurance was effected an express dis
closure that the store did not belong to the
assured, but to J. Marks, and hence under
writer's were aware of the nature of the in
terest and risk they were insuring.
There is nothing to show that either
plaintiff or defendant, at the time the policy
was effected, intended to insure any other
interest than that of Roos & Co., or chat
Roos q Co. we're acting as agents and for
account Of Marks. Hence the transfer of
my interest Marks may have had in the
policy amounts to nothing, for he had none.
Plaintiffs can not be affected by the acts
# other parties. who may have insured for
themselves or Marks. The act of others
o which PLAINTIFF were not privy can not
'e imputed to plaintiffs as double insur-
nee of the same thing and interest by the
anne party. 30. i.
Judgment for plaintiffs.