The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-06-22

GfnS m0nLDS ago. Uut suusSluSu"y
,naed not to do 80, and principally TOT the
.csson that be could not bring himself TO sur.
cnder the Establishments of Washington
fdciai life.
(Frors Tho New York Times, 10Th
Supreme Court Of the United states.
ALLsGED FRAUDULENT ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
IN AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE.
WAsmsGroN, June 14.--In the United
States Sxprene Court the folio wing opinions
have been delivered:
No. ES5.-The Americon life Insurance
Cn,mpsny. plaintiff On error. Us. Zenora r.
and William G. II Mdhoni.-In error to the
Ciroxit Court of the United States for the
Southern District of Mississippi.-Mr.J JUS
tioc Strong delivered the opinion OF the
court. The geeersl nature Of the defence In
this action iG the Circuit Court was
That the policy had been issued on the
faith of false aad fraudulent representations
made BY DRard, whose life was insured, and
that those representations were by the eX.
press agreement of the parties declared to
be warranttea. Among the questions pro-
pounded to billiard and answered in the
" proposal for insurance" was the follow.
ing: "Is the party temperate and regular IN
his habits?" To which the answer 7'yes"
was appended. This was question and an
swer No.5. Question No. 10 was: " Is the
applicant aware that any untrue or fraudu-
lent answer to the above queries, or any sup
preston of facts in regard to health. habits,
or circumstances, will vitiate the policy!" TO
which the answer eyes" was also appended.
None of the answers were written by Dill
lard. though be signed his name at the foot
of them all. They were written by 1eiser,
the agent of the company, and. as he testi-
fed, read over to billiard, who then signed
them, and Immediately afterward signed a
declaration filled up by the agent. which was,
in effect, an agreement that If the SAID pro-
possls, answers, and declarations returned to
the company should be found fraudulent or
untrue in any respect, or if there should be
any wilful misrepresentation or concealment
in the said declaration, the policy should be
void. All this was introduced by the de.
PENDANTS, and after its introduction the plain
uffs we're permitted, against the objection
of the defendants, TO call a witness and prove
by him that be was present when Yeiser pro-
pounded question No. to billiard. and that
billiards. answer was not Eyes," but "
never refuse to take drink" or 81 always
take nv drinks" and that the answer eyes
was improperly written down without the
knowledge or consent of Dlllard. The re-
ception Of this testimony constitutes the
basis Of the first assignment of error. That
there is no substantial reason for complain
ing of the ruling of the court in this pirticu-
lar il, we think, fully shown by what was
decided 10 Insurance Company Us. Wilkin-
son, IS Wallace, 222. and in the cases therein
mentioned. The testimony was admitted,
not to contradict the written warranty, bur
TO show that it was not the warranty OF
billiard, though signed by him. Prepared
as it was bv the company's agent, and the
answer to No. 5 having been made, rs the
witness proved, by the agent, the proposals,
both questions and answers, must be regard
ed as the act Of the company, which they
cannot be permitted to set up as warranty
BIZ the assured. And this is especially so
when, as in this case, true answers were, in
fact made by the applicant Of the witness is
to be beleved), and the agent substituted for
them Others, now alleged TO be untrue, thus
disappearing the applicant, as we'll rs de.
ceiyiug his own principals. Nor do we think
it makes any difference that the answers, as
written bv the agent, were subsequently read
to Billiard and signed by him. Having himself
answered truly, and Yeiser having under
taken to prepare and forward the proposals,
billiard had q right to assume that the an
swers he did make were accepted as meaE-
ing for the purpose Of obtaining policy
what Yeiser stated them in writing to be.
The acts and declarations OF 1eiser are to
be considered the acts and declarations Of
the company whose agent be was, and Dill
lard was justified 10 SO understanding them.
The transaction, therefore, was substantially
this: The company asked billiard: " Are
YOU temperate and regular in your habits 2"
To which he answered: L" never refuse to
take drink" or, 81 always take my
drinks" To this the company replied, in
effect, we understand your answer to mean
the same, in your application for policy, as
if you had answered eyes," and we ac-
cept il as such, and write "yes" in the
proposals. Then, upon being asked whether
he warranted the truth of his answers, he
returned the reply. "Since you so under
stand my answers, do" Surely, after such
q transaction, the company cannot be per-
mitted to say that the applicant is bound by
what was written in the proposals for insu-
race as his warranty. and that such was the
transaction the evidence received by the
court tended to prove. The first assignment
OF error, therefore, cannot be sustained; nor
can the sixth, which is to the charge Of the
court, and which presents substantially the
same question as that raised By the
first. The second assignment complains
of the exclusion of the testimony of
DR.. Alexander, a medical witness. He
was offered to prove that, az the medical
examiner Of another company, he had exam
ined billiard in June, 1870, and had given bis
opinion in writing TO that company that Dill
lard was not worthy of insurance. This offer
the court overruled; and we cannot see why
the evidence should have been received. The
unfitness of Ditlard for insurance in June,
1870, surely could not be proved by the fact
that the witness had then expressed an opin.
ion that he was unit. And besides, such an
opinion had no pertnency to any of the issues
joined between the parties. The witness was
also as ked whether he was acquainted with the
condition and state of health of billiard in
June, 1870; and if so, what it was, and
the nature of his disease or maiady, if any !?
And to thisquestion also the court refused to
permit al answer. The policy on which the
suit was brought was made on the S0th day
of August, 1870. Had the question adj.
dressed to the witness related to time SUBJ
sequent to the issue Of the policy. the answer
TO it should have been received, for one of
the Issues on trial was whether Dlllard,
latter the execution of tue policy, became
so far incorporate as to impair his health."
But there was no issue in regard to bis health
prior to the insurance, and therefore the evil
deDce offered was rightly rejected. OF the
fourth and fifth assignments, it is sufficient
10 say that we do not perceive they ex.
hi5it any error. The third assignment is of
more Importance. Tue plaintiffs were al