The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1874-12-24

OF the company provided that q policy
shall be void unless the premium Is paid
before the loss occurs, q verdict was di-
rected Tor the defendants"
What the particulars Of this case may
have been does not appear In the article
from which we quote In the Journal of
Commerce, but by the comments Of the
writer 1t appears that the decision Is
taken to settle the point, as ageneral prin.
ciple, that loss Is not recoverable from
an Insurance company where the premium
has not been paid. 1t Is also taken
to settle the point that brokers through
whom risks are sent to insurance COM
panies become thereby the agents Of the
assured and not Of the insurance company.
1t would therefore appear that the sale
thing for q person to do who takes out
an insurance policy is topay the premium
at once and get q receipt for the same
from the company. The receipt Of
a broker or solicitor, unless he be the
agent Of the company, will not stand in
law.
In the New York Tribune OF Tuesday
Is another insurance decision that Is Of
general interest. II Is as follows: The
Averill Chemical Paint Company, Of
New York, sued for and recovered
81 ,9Sl 81 from ". Louis insurance com.
pany. 1t appeared that about 4 o'clock
in the afternoon Of December 4th, 1872
that
"a Mr.. Rankin as agent of the plaintiffs
went TO Mr. Polly, the Brooklyn agent oil
the general agents of the Company, and
arranged for an insurance at II per cent,
to take effect at once. The premises
caught fire about 8 o'clock, ,Iand the loss
was about $4,000. The premises was
insured in 10 different companies, and the
agents Of the companies appointed com.
mittee, Of whom Mr.. Polly was one, to
adjust the the losses. The share OF the
81. Louis Company was fixed at 81 1872 50
The defense was that the Company had
expressly forbidden its agents 10 take any
risks Of the class known as specially
hazardous and had directly rejected this
risk, and that there was collusion be-
tween the plaintiffs and their agents in
getting It accepted. The jury overruled
these detenses.
Another case referred to in Tuesdays
issue OF the New York Tribune is of spe-
cial interest TO stockholders in National
Banks, and is as follows: Itis the case Of
man IA DR.. CHEEsRMAN) who became a
subscriber in 1865 for fifty shares of stock
in the Slh National Bank Of New York.
s"In May, 1867, at a time when the bank
was in excellent credit, having a consid-
cradle surplus, and when its stock stood
at par in the market, he determined to
part with his fifty shares. He accident.
ally mentioned his purpose TO the cashier
Of the bank, and that officer volunteered
TO dispose Of them Tor him. Shortly after
he informed DR.. Cheeseman that he had
found purchaser, and directed him to
transfer the certificates by signing the or
dinary power OF attorney on Them In
blank. DR.. Cheeseman did go, and gave
the certificates 10 the cashier, who cred.
tied his account with the par value Of
the stocks. The cashier was the proper
transfer officer Of the bank, and Dr..
Cheeseman followed his directions as to
the manner OF transfer. he heard no
more OF the matter until December, 1871,
after the failure of the bank, when he was
informed by the receiver that his
name stood upon the shareholders
list, and therefore that he was liable for
his proportionate share OF the banks in
debtedness. This suit was brought 10
enforce that liability. Upon the trial it
was shown that this stock was actually
purchased by the bank. The shares re.
mained in possession OF the bank, which
collected all subsequent dividends upon
them, and after its failure the shares were
turned over TO the receiver with the
other assets, Upon these facts Judge
Blatchtord held that DR.. Cheeseman was
liable Tor the assessment Of 81 per cent
ordered by the Controller, although he
had parted with the shares four years be.
fore, on the ground that In order to es-
cape liability a shareholder must see that
his stock Is transferred upon the book OF
the bank 10 some person capable OF sue
CeediDg 10 his obligations, and that the
bank was not such person, being prohib-
tied by law from purchasing its own
stock. 1t follows from this that the Or
dinary method OF transfer by signing the
blank power'Of Attorney will not protect
the shareholder, and that in all cases OF
sales Of such bank stock he remains liable
until the transfer is made on the banks
book to his successor. II is important,
therefore, for those who have heretofore
made such transfers, that they should at
once see them thus perfected.