New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-09-25
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
A SISTER HAS AN ISsURABLE INTEREST IN
DRoIURR's LIFE.
BROTHERS. LIFE.

WasuISGrov. Sept 2i.-The following decision
has rendered among others by The United states su
Ens s Insurance cG%pnsy plaintiff In arrd IN to- to
tHo Circuit court Of the for the Eastern Dis
TR acton was brought by David France Luoeita p
he vie to reSoyer he anSnnI Gi P@1 S o, Of PM dpa
dated sept - ls1S ana 20 en-, psnrspce made out
Che~ sf5 Inc s1t Of The company We're signed by
NuHeTons EXCEPTIONS " re taken st which err
asst ned here bot they are al redpcaee a. two sc
in Iuo";ie p France Msrepreseut alton and
warranty 70 the age and heath Of sad Chew III
inca p France had an insuabe interest the lie Of
chew the conceded facts are. that she his sis.
ter a. .. ss'eS m wd 1e m1r To me other Panaa "a.
vd France and in no Wy depeest on her brother ior er
shocInaser ana was Of small means evidence given
tending to show that MT France had at different to- times
lent him 800 in september 1865. tfat previous
PSy hf s SoDn on de m dr a e
in jane Of the ane year and that a. TIE time OF issuing me
married and in fact married the next day The policy
signed bv The secretary of the company lesirne
by in Phadepha all Acknowledge that said pIemi'
The construction given the policy by the court below
CSew for en- assurance o. his Ne with stipulation and
HAT The shoud be paid TO ms sister ana
count Of inc nearne-s relationship the pares
esccd q chsNs nsst Of IiD g5S,pccywS y
concur in the construction tho policy made by
the and IN the validity Of nc Transaction
A. hold by In The case OF The Connecticut Mutual sgr
Scha fer Just decided erson has th 10 procure ~ IT,
be by way OF cover for wager policy and where
the sonsip between the parties ~ N ms ce Is sae a.
grant the transaction Is entirely free from snen
snent Aud in such case ii aid mat it natter not
70 questions al he app ieauon, there was is
ceny between 9e statement, made 9e eg 9 i resrS
that 10 The best Of ms mem.J the curt hoar 'st S
acccutsd the Qualification. Affirmed.
nr. Justice bra ley delivered the opinion
A COMMON CARRIER RESPONSIBLE FOR THR NFGIf-
GENCR OF ALL TIVE LINES EMPLOYED.
No 7Grhe President Directors COMPANY Of tho Bank
OF Kc,:ctv I'm error vs. Tie Adams Express company.
H. Tie Planters National Bank OF LouIsYn' vs. INC
In error to the crcuit Court Of the United states
On me 2s asy of July isGa ths Express Com
pany r,eiTsr igo 'g co., & 55s 4 Tor delivery
tn Bank O Hentucsy. Louisville and ho oHr t %
- GOO for delivery to de Planters Nauorai iahh OF .'
yie at Louisville The 0cney belonged TO the banks r.
si sS 10 T yl '' S Tss the Southern Express
~ ~, sior;ed nei hy abroad a. n. Humbo
al - 20 i'1i,.rei hcl 1 4 in Safurer 81 the
De eHdau no was also Their meRsrI 10 T"5f,e 'a
To- a. pins 10 ihad PqTIG ea, and eiitin t6e safe
n al ApaInsht ., 'o1 10 1,,viile snbse
queny Whie tram 70 winch the car containing IN picA.
louisville and Nashville Railroad. and while the packages
were In CHARGE OF The messenger. uie treste gave
way during inc 9 ,r se ,r ln AND T the car With
others caught IRE from The en- ne ana ~ DrIia
Vi
rendered nsuslle bv the al and dee continued 30 un ave.
the destruct complete There was some eNcn. NAV
-omr of the timber trcstle seemed dccaytd GA these
facts n Court below The cafTefs IL - mere
said that TIE defendants common carriers IheY were
not the thcF lad stipulated Tor more
restricted LIABILITY Woull have been heirs had Their re-
cent contained only carry ana deliver Matty
were 10 rIiurd the nature OF nor business uot
by the contract rtsuec he liabilities winch should aehl
IT, Having mp the PATTON It's hXed tel c i,et
could not throw. OF Dy itrtfou or stipulation that
they should not DE considered such carriers.
Tho duty IT q common 1er o. TRANSPORT ana denver
safely against failure T. perform Tins duif except sucD
failure as bg Tbs public enemy, or hf what
denomnacd lc act 81 God by special utract WIN hs
employers. s true tn sOue extent De excused
The 90 responsibility "a y lari Or are, ~ lie
iufement ~ The law reasonable ana mol neon
sstpnt with sound public policy. IL ~ agreed how
ever be cannot by contract Win MS
customers relieve himself from resppnsbiSy for h4 own
negligence h " Els servants, aid ms nccaua- Sich
unreasonable and contrary 10 lcga pEt} -
much has nHa tefmEed ia Railroad Company ATT
Lockwood = " l, j57. But can he by contr ct made
with th~e who enrus property 90 MN Tor carrige ana
do.y,ry "A made a. the time he receives me
property. Cor himself eH mpuon from responri-
billy Tor ccnstgue Of Tie negligence OF raj road com
pany agents not owned " co, rolled by lfa bu Wch
he employs the Transportation This question Is not an
tlc kwOOd u IS raised here or rather me
question cted whether common carrier noes relieve
himself from the cpnseqIencoso ~ such negligence By sPu
laton shall be- liable for losses by hre on ms
point sail that the carr * responsible for the conduct
AGENCY pfe ID tne carrag, aud that he cannot
riiev il ,1,. Reversed Mt Justice strong delivered