The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-03-17
UNITED STATES sUpREME COUR1
WASHINGTON, March 10, 1871.

wAsHlNGToN March 10, 1874.
The following decisions were rendered IN the
Supreme Court to-day
Travellers Insurance Company VS.. Seaver -Er-
ror TO Circuit Court for Vermont.-The main CUES
lions IN this case were whether the Court below
erred IN nstructing the jury that the driving OF
race, when regarded as an exposure OF the lie or
the insured TO unnecessary peril, was to be con-
slderea In the light IN which fair minded people OF
the community looked upon 1t. and II, under the
ordinary regulations OF such matches. such lair
minded people would not regard the driving
OF the match as within the provisions
Of life policy against sucn exposure,
then the representatives OF the insured, VINO was
entitled while so driving, could recover, and
whether IL was error for the Court to instruct the
less driving oil his competitor and not by the ordl-
nary mlschance OF the race, then there should be
recovery. i is held that the Court erred III both
instances, thar the question OF wilul exposure
was lOr the jury, after all the facts were before
them. and that. If the intentions OF the competitor
OF the insured were as bad as the charge OF the
Court implied and the reckless driving was tor the
purpose OF Winning the race at all hazards. still
the tact aid not take the case out OF the clause OF
the policy against Wiliul exposure. II was against
Just such danger the company had intended 20 pro-
tect Itself. reversed. Mr.. Justice Miller delivered
In the case of Trask VS.. Mcguire. from the Mis-
sour Circuit court. the question Was whether the
property OF the present ST. Louis ana Iron Noun
tain kallrOad Company IL exempt from state tax
alton. rae present road was purchased rom the
State at sale made TO reimburse She state treas
ury the interest and principal OF bonds issued 10
the OLD company OF the same name which was In
default ana it was contended that the saie carried
with It, together with the right TO operate the
ROAD, the rignt OF exemption rom State taxation.
because the act OF the Legislature authorizing the
sale provided or tue transfer OF the property IN
terest. NC, OF the old company. Ii is mere
held tnat the act OF the Legislature could not re-
yive and authorize TO be transferred an exemption
which had ceased TO exist by the default Of the Old
company, even II such was the intention, because
the new constitution OF the state had IN the mean
time provided against such exemptions in the
ture. Judgment affirmed. MIR. Justice Field de-
hvered the opinion.
steamship Pennsylvania vs. bark Mary f..
ThroOp-Appeal from the Eastern District OF New
fOrk.-ln this case the Court held that while 1t
may be that when the bark was discovered by the
steamer 1t was too late TO AVOID coll
lision, still IL Is possible that ii when
the bell on her starboard bow was announced
her helm had been put to starboard instead
or TO port the COLLISION might not have occurred;
hut, II this rs not TO be attributed to her as fault
there Is no excuse found in the evidence Tor the
high rate oil speed at which she was sailing during
so dense log as prevailed when the vessels came
together. Notwithstanding the tog was so dense
that objects could not be seen at distance
greater than the lengtn OF the steamer, she was
still sailing at the rate OF seven knots an h0nr.
For these reasons the decree is reversed. Mr..
Justice strong delivered the opinion.
No. 677. Cot vs. Robinson.-Appea from the Cir
cult Court iOs the Southern District OF New York
Motion to dismiss Tor wan OF jurisdiction denied.