The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1877-05-14
IhGGmtelhqrncfr.
Decisions Affecting wheeling liz
SuPnuCe Companies.

Charleston in which certain Of our Wheel,
ing Insurance Companies were interested.
These cases we're as follows: David
Elgap Va. the Etna Company; L, W.
Levy W. the Peabody; Gustaye Stole VA
the lE!na; Nicholas Mason vs. the Citi.
Gems; Wm. A. Quarter, trustee, Va. the
Peabody, and same Va. the E!na.
These cases are only OF inlercst to the
public because Of the rulings laid down.
We are indebted to Mr.. o. S. Long, Clerk
oi the Court, for an opportunity TO con.
suil the record in each Gaze. In the first
case, that Of Eagan vs.. the Etna Compa.
ny, the Court laid down one or two very
important principles. 1t held that a pro-
vision in policy Of insurance declaring
the policy void unless the premium is
actually paid is waived by the delivery
Of the policy without requiring prepay.
mrnl of the premium. 1! also decided
that where there is provision in pol.
icy that in case II building stands on
leased ground the fact must be 30 stated
in the policy, otherwise it shall be void,
that this provision is to be considered
waived by an adjustment OF the loss by
the company with full knowledge Of all
the facts.
Ia the second ca'r, that OF Levy ys. the
Peabody, ii wa' laid down By the Court
that where ia an action OF assump8it on
policy Of insurance the declaration
alleges that the plaintiff has performed
all the conditions Of the policy, this must
be regarded as meaning such as have not
been waived, and II the defendant pleads
that certain condition has been violated
by the plaintiff he may reply that the
right to insist on the performance Of this
condition has been waived, specifying the
manner in whichil has been waived. And
il the declaration alleges specifically the
performance OF particular condition,
and the defcadent pleads non.alsump,it,
the plaintiff can sustain this allegation
by proving tina. the performance of this
particular condition had been waived by
the defendant.
1t was also held in the same case tha.
an adjustment with the assured after q
loss by fire, with full knowledge of all
the facts, is a waiver OF the right on The
part Of the company to insist on the ben.
eft Of provision in the policy that the
obtaining Of other insurance on the
property without their consent phoud
render the policy void, aud also Of pro.
vision requiring the assured to furnish
the company before it should be liable
with the certificate OF u Notary Public Of
certain facts.
I!waa also laid down in the same case
that on demurrer to evidence by the
defendant, all his evidence contradicled
by the plaintiff il waived, as we'll rs all
his evidence which is given by witnesses
whose credit is impeachcd either directly
or By the contradiction OF statements
made by them Of material points.
In tho third case, that of Stole vs.. the
E.na Company, it was held that the
courts will enforce provision in 4 policy
prohibiting under penalty OF iorieiting
the insurance transfer of the policy be.
fore the loss. 1t was also held in the
erme case that where the assured having
rightly the terms OF a policy to termi.
nate ii at any time, and to have returned
70 him the premium paid, less tue custo'
mary short rates for the time the insur-
auce has continued, was prevented from
exercising this right by the statement oi
the Secretary Of the Company that a
transfer OF the policy to certain per-
son did not require his approval ii
writing. though the policy on its tacs did
require such formaIity on his part, is u
waiver otthe provision avoiding the pol.
icy by reason OF the transfer thereof to
such person without the consent OF the
company in writing.
In the fourth case, that Of Nichola,
Mason vs.. the Citizens Company, it was
held that letter from the Sec
retary OF Company to an assured per,
ion, after proof OF loss has been furnished
the Company, in which the Secretary
proposes for the Company TO pay one,
fifth OF the loss proved, saying that iol
the other four.iiiths the Company was
not responsible, as the Company had but
one.fiilh OF the entire insurance on the
property when they insured their policy
il waiver OF any right to claim the
banef! oi u provision requiring the as
cured before he could have right to
enforce the policy to furnish proof in n
certain manner Of the amount OF loss
and also certificate of Il Notary Public
Of certain fac,s in connection with the
lo.s.
In the fifth case, that OF Quarter
trn',ee, vs. the Peabody Company, itwa.
laid down by the Court that in an action
OF a'sump,it on policy of insurance it
Unnecessary for the plaintiff to allege an
interest in the property insured, which is
'o'utiicientIy done by the allegation thai
he dctendantinsured the PLAINTIFF prop.
'fty' l'was also held that where dec
i1'aI'on alleges that the loss Is to be paid
in % days, after proof and notice given
the defendant in the manner required by
tho policy, it is necessary for the deo!ar,
alton to allCgO this manner and that such
proof and notice wa, accordingly given. A
latl"Fs to make such allegations, or the
allegation OF interest is fatal 10 the dec.
lara'ion on general demurrer.
A provision in policy that the assur.
ed shall recover such portion of eloss
only IA ihe suu ossr.oJ h.,