The New York herald., 1877-02-10
Important Suit by the New York Board
Of Fire Underwriters.
CURIOUS WILL CONTEST.
Grand Centennial Excursion that Proved
Grand Fiasco.
MORE MARITAL MISALL LIANCES

Tho New York Board Of Fire Underwriters havc
brought suit against August J. Gross and James b.
Faitoute, insurance brokers. Tho complaint alleges
as the solo cause OF action that the defendants IN
violation OF chapter 555 of Laws OF 1875 negotiated
an insurance risk by policy OF the Milivlle Mutual
Marine Fire Insurance Company to one Frank Is.
Ward, and thereby incurred the statutory penalty.
The answer denies the alleged violation OF the law.
The referred to prohibits insurance companies
incorporated by tho laws Of any other State from
transactng business directly or by agents in the State
oi New York, except upon compliance with certain
conditions and declares 'that whenever IL shall be
unlawful for any insurance company to take risks or
osansact the business OF within this Stne,
through agents or otherwise, 1t shail bo likewise
unlawful for any broker brokers or other persons
acting for persons firms or corporations in this
State or elsewhere negotiate for place risks in
any such insurance company, or IN any way or man
ner aid such persons firms or corporations In enecng
yuch unauthorized msuranccs; and further that the
term broker brokers shall ncudc all persons aud
6rins whoss business, in whole or In part, II Is TO
negotiate Tor place risks deliver the policies cover
ing the collect the premiums therefor"
penalty Of $500 imposed for eacn violation of tots
provision. In May, 1875, W. Carpenter OF Carthage,
N Y, made application 10 the defendants, VINO were
tire insurance brokers doing business at NO ITO Broad
way, Tor behalf oi Frank H. Ward ior The
amoant OF ST. VUU property IN Denmark, N. Y. Tho
deieadants, on tho 23i or May last, sent 10 him
noIcv in lhe Paterson Fire Insurance Company Tor
$500 aud wrolc:-.'Wc will cndcavor TO send you
policy TOR balance ID few days. On the 10Th OF May
they wrote Carpenter -"rincosed we hand you the
other policy tor +. b. Ward IN the Millville for 5000
Tho Millvlle Insurance Company referred 10 IN the
elter a corporation organized under the laws oil
New Jersey which never compicd with the Fire In
surancc law Of New York ami has never been author
lied transact lire insurance business IN this State
The above transaction was communicates 10 tne
Superintendent OF Insurance of this state and upon
the information OF the New York Board of Fire
Underwriters, corporation organized BY the laws OF
this state Tor the purpose OF promoting the general
Interests of tho OF lro insurance.. this action
WE, commenced in the name OF the people and an
olurr o! arrest issued and duly executed
The Defendants were arrested july 2S 1915 They
now move, upon aidavits To vacae the order oil ar-
rest. These aldavils are SIMPLY the denials OF the
answer detail, OF tho cause OF action alleged
the complaint and substantially admit that the de-
cndants did act IN negotiating tho risk and did ud IN
ecctng the insurance. but set up that the transaction
WAS with Carpenter and not with Ward that no pre-
MUM was paid and that the policy was cancelled
WITHIN short time alter It's issue Tor the nOn-payment
Of premium 1t thus appears that the cause of action
ana of arrest are Identical, and no matters are
alleged tho moving afdavis winch are not evidence
relating 10 the sole in the The opposing
nfdasits fully sustain the allegations OF the compant,
aud show that Carpenter was known 70 defendants 10
be the agent OF Ward; that the policy was negotiated
and delivered by defendants, and tuat Inc non-pay-
nent OF premium was due TO the discovery by Wards
agent OF the illegally OF the transaction. 1t also ap
pears that the are nsolven and out o The
Stale.
Chambers, before judge Barrett Mr.. William Allen
Butler appeared for the plaintiffs aud Mr.. McGrccgor
Steele for the defendants. SIR. Butler insisted that
this cause OF action and the cause OF arrest being
identical the Court Will not this molten 10 vacate
tho order OF arrest the merits OF the action. Tho
motion should be denied this ground being
nade show that the order U arrest was not war
ranted by The iacts alleged by The plaintiff mere
denial ol those facts was, he claimed, ground Tor
vacatng this order The OBJECT OF the act in question,
he insisted iurthcr was 10 regulate the business oil lire
insurance for the protection well OF policy holders
nm he Is
tai the business IS copducted that the conditions i'm
posed on companies organized under the laws of other
States prerequisites Tor their aciing business
in this State have been sanctioned and
upheld by the United States supreme Court,
and the provision as 10 ihe penalty
has been upheld this State; that aside from Inc OBJ
vIous principles OF pubic policy which tho statute
pancs OF other States 10 issue policies aud take RISKS
In this state or allowing agents or brokers TO aid IN
negotiating such RISKS are clearly shown by The facts
stated In the adavits submitted IN the case that IL Is
matter general public that the provisions
existing law should be applied and enforced by
the courts; that the OF 1879 designed to
edy supposed dsiccis in tho law OF 1858 pointed out
the case OF the People VS. Inlay, - Barb. IS; that
The facts disclosed In EXHIBIT fragrant viola.
ton OF the law that II Is undsputed that toe deicnd
negotiated for and placed an insurance risk by an
unauthorized company and bad by direct acts aided in
efnctins such unauthorized Insurance.; that the
penalty gwen by the statute Is incurred whenever
broker In the OF his business ne9oiaes for or
places risks aids'' in cnecng the nsurances that
the defendants upon the iaets disclosed are clearly
Liable, and the fact appearing that they are wholly Ir
responsible and insoivent they should be lut to
trial the merits and that the notion to vacae the
order OF should be denied, with costs Mr.
made lengthy response combating stTenuously
the points raised opposition TO The motion. ae in
sisted that the policy question was speedily can
ceed and that this account the defendants should
not bc held strict accountability IN the case AT the
close OF the argument Judge Barrett took the papers,
reserving his decision.
A COMPLICATED WILL CASE.
Victor BobdeIl, restaurant keeper in West Hous-
ton street, died in Bellevue Hospital in January OF
last year. He made will leaving all his property to