The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-04-28

A L1FE-INsURANCE SUIT WHERE FALSE
REPRESENTATION IS ALLEG f D-TF1E
COUNTIES AND THE SALT SUITS-OTHER
PROCEEDINGS.
The insurance business has assumed great
prominence and importance in this city and
State. and is still advancing. Thousands
of persons are concerned In the leading
cases decided from time to time by the SUI
prenie Court, and the docket Of that tribu-
nal shows an increasing number OF suits in
which questions relating to the interest are
| involved.
On Thursday Judge Staples delivered the
unanimous opinion Of the judges in the
case of the Southern Mutual Insurance
Company Us. Yates, from Orange county,
which is deserving Of attention not only
from underwriters, but from all insured or
all who make applications for insurance.
Judge Staples said "the plaintiff is the
holder OF a policy OF fire insurance in the
Southern Mutual Company. In his appli-
cation, upon which the policy issued, he
is represented as stating, in answer to n
question asked by the agent, there was
then no incumbrance upon the property
The application as signed by the plaintiff is
made part OF the policy, and has the force
and effeCt OF WaTTanCy.
"The property having been destroyed by
fire, and the company refusing TO pay, the
nlaintiff brought his action toTecover the
value. One OF the grounds OF defence re-
lied on bv the company is that the repre-
spntation in respect to the incumbrance was
untrue; that at the time there was deed
of trust upon the building nearly equal to
its value, the existence OF which was wholly
unknown to the company. This is not con-
troyerted by the plaintiff, but he insists that
he made no such representation upon the
subject Of membranes as Is set forth III
the application.
"Upon the trial he was introduced as a
witness in his own behalf, and in response
to question propounded by his own coun-
sci. he said he had never read the applica-
ton, either at the time or since; that the
agent Of the company asked him IN whom
the title was, and he replied it was in him.
self, but the agent did not ask him any
questions as to membranes on SAID pro-
perty.
company upon the ground that its effect was
to contradict the express terms OF the war
ranty; but the Court overruled the oblec-
ton and permitted the evidence to go be-
fore the Jury. From this statement it IS
manifest that the whole question turns upon
the admissiblity OF parol evidence to affect
the terms Of a written contract"
The Supreme Court held that the court
below erred in receiving the evidence set
out in the defendants first bill OF exceptions
to contradict the terms OF the warranty.
The rule in this State is well settled that
when contract is reduced TO writing 1t Is
not only the best, but the sole evidence OF
the agreement, and the parties are presumed
to have rejected everything the writing does
not contain; and this principle applies as
strongly to policies Of insurance as to any
other class of written contracts. The policy
must be held to have been made for the pur-
Dose OF embodying the terms OF the con-
tract, and designed to be the sole depository
and proof of their final intention. The ex-
ceptions to this rule, as sanctioned by the
courts, stand upon peculiar grounds.
Here the Judge states the exceptions at
length in his opinion.l
These exceptions proceed upon the idea
that the oral evidence is not offered TO con-
tradict the writing, but to show that the
representation, as it is written in the policy,
ought not to be used against the insured,
upon the ground Of equitable cstoppel.
In the present case, the Court says, it is
proposed to substitute for the warranty con-
tanned in the policy oral representations OF
an entirely different character.
1t is not pretended that the agent OF the
company was guilty Of any fraud or con-
cealment or wilful misstatement. The only
ground, then, upon which there can be any
reasonable pretence OF reforming the policy
is mistake, but it is we'll settled the mis-
take OF the assured alone will not answer.
Tt must be the mutual mistake OF both par
ties to Justify the interference Of the courts.
II the insured signed the application, as he
alleges, without reading it. that in itself
was inexcusable negligence. The applica-
ton contained his representation in an lm-
portant contract. When he signed it he
was bound to know what he signed. The
law at least required that he should eXer-
else reasonable diligence to see that his an
swers are correctly stated. 1t is for his in
terest to do so, and the insurer has the right
to presume that he has done so.
The Court said that application in this
case being part OF the policy, and having
in this case all the force OF warranty, the
existence of an incumbrance upon the pro-
perty constituted breach OF the warranty.
There were a number OF other points in
volved in the case, but it IS not deemed
very material or important to state them
here.
The court was unanimously OF opinion
that the judgment of the County and Circuit
Courts be reversed and the cause remanded
for new trial.
THE SALT CASES AND OTHER DECISIONS.
The following is a correct statement as to
the Dinwiddie salt case decided Thursday !:
County Of Dinwiddie Us. Stuart, Buchanan
& Co. From the Circuit Court OF the county
of Dlnwiddle. Substantially affirmed, Judge
Christian delivering the opinion OF the
Court. This case settles the liability OF the
counties of the State for salt furnished to
them during the war. Judge Anderson
dissented, and Judge Moncure concurred
in his opinion.
The following business was also trans
acted on Thursday:
Moore Us. Virginia Fire and Marine Insu-
rance Company. From the Circuit Court OF
tue city of Richmond. Affirmed, Judge
Moncure delivering the opinion OF the court.
Moore rs. Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company. From the Circuit Court OF the
city of Richmond. Affirmed, Judge Mon
cure delivering the opinion OF the court.
Tancil Us. Seaton. From the Corpora
ton Court OF Orange. Reversed, Judge
Burks delivering the opinion Of the court.
Waters Us. Waters. Appeal refused to
decree of the Circuit Court OF Loudoun.
Campbell Us. Campbell, &c. Appeal re-
fused to decree OF the Circuit Court OF
Washington county.
YESTERDAYS PROCEEDINGS.
McDonald's administrator rs. Taylor's
administrator. Appeal refused to decree
| of tho G;rcJ1it Gourt NJ raZeWell. ..z.