The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-01-10
Portsmouth Insurance Company Va,
YeyuaIfs's Administrators

In this case. deciued by the SUPREME
Court OF Appeals on Thur sday. the bill wa,
tiled to recover Of the Portsmouth Insurance
Company the amount Of the insurance on
two buildings In Portsmouth against loss
by fire.
The policies, issued some years before the
late war between the States, excepted from
the general undertaking OF insurance "any
loss or damage by fire which might happen
or take place by means OF any invasion, in
surrection, riot, or civil commotion, or OF
any military or usurped power"
The Convention OF Virginia passed the
ordinance OF secession on the l7th day of
April. 1861, and on the morning Of the 2lst,
under circumstances which caused the all.
'horities OF the United States to be appre-
hensive that GOSpOrt uavy-yard, then occu.
pied and held by the United States under
purchase from the State Of Virginia in the
year 1900. could not be longer safely held
at that time. the navy-yard was abandoned,
the Government buildings there having
been first fred bv command OF the military
officers IN charge, themselves acting under
authority Of the Government OF the United
States. The fire was communicated from
these buildings TO the insured buildings.
which stood in close proximity, and oil
were rapidly and totally destroyed. The
insurance company claimed that the loss
was within the excepted perils, and there
fore denied all liability.
The Court OF Appeals, affirming the de-
cision OF the Circuit Court OF Norfolk
county, held
/. That the proximate cluse Of the loss
was the act Of the Government OF the
United States through its officers and sol
diers setting tire by its authority TO the Gov
ernment buildings, and not any threaten
ed or npprebcDded attack By the military
forces OF the state, which might have been
the occasion or motive for the burning, or il
u was The cause, it was in the eyes OF the
law The remote, not the proXlnate cause.
2. That the pTOXimate cause OF the fire
and the loss being the act Of the Federal
Government, inSurrectiOn, riot, or civil
cOmmOtiOn" could not be predcated OF
that Government.
3. That The term military" in the phrase
" military or usurped power" was employ
ed IN the policies in meaning Synonymous
with the " u>urpcd power" intended to be
described, or as qualifying or explaining
what was meant by "usurped power" and
was intended 10 express, as Ill the other
words with which il Is associated 50 clearly
and unequivocally express, what is unlaw-
ful, employed IN disregard or in subyersiOn
Of the laws or Of the Govcrnment-lhat it
was intended TO describe an organization
military in its form but unlawful and hos
tile to the Government in its character and
purpose; and that these terms, "military
or usurped power" in the sense in which
they were employed IN the policies, are not
descriptive Of the Government OF the United
states as it stood in relation to the State OF
Virginia on the 2lst Of April, 1861.
4. That. moreover, on that day the Gov
ernment OF the United States was not for
eign as to the state OF Virginia, and the act
OF its officers, by its authority in firing the
Government buildings or abandoning the
navy-ydrd was not an act OF invasion by ii
foreign enemy.
This proposition was based on the condi-
tiOnal character OF the ordinance OF seces-
sion. The Legislature, in calling the Con-
vention. directed a vote Of the qualified
voters Of the wealth to be taken on
the question whether any action OF the Con-
ventiOn dissolving the connection OF the
State with the Federal Union or changing
the organic law of the State should be sub
mitted 10 them for ratification or re-
lection, and a large majority voted that
such action, il taken, should be so submit
ted. The Convention was, therefore, lim-
lied in its powers. The fourth Thursday
OF May following it was submitted, and was
then ratified. In the mean time-tO wit, on
the 18th OF AprIl-the Convention formed
temporary union with the Confederate
States, and by ordinance adopted the pro-
riSiOndl Constitution Of the Confederate
States, with proyiso, however, that the
ordinance should cease 10 be operative il
the people Of the State should refuse 10
ratiiy the ordinance OF secession. IL did
not adopt what was known as the perma-
nent Constitution OF the Confederate States
until June 49, 1861.
In the light Of these facts it was conSld-
cred that on the DIST Of April, when the fire
occurred and the loss happened, the Gov
crnment Of the United States could not he
Justly regarded as foreign Government,
nor its action on that day as hostile to the
State. and the ratification OF the ordinance
by the people could not have the effect, by
relation to its date, TO change the actual
status Of the two Governments on that day
so as TO render acts tortious which would
not Otherwise be so, and defeat the just
rights OF private citizens.
These propositions were discussed at con-
siderable length, with citation OF numerous
authorities, in the opinion delivered by
Judge Burks. cOncurred in by Judge An
derson and Judge Staples. The President
(Judgc Moncure) and Judge Christian dis
sented
The insurance company was held liable
for the amounts insured with interest.
SUPRrNE COURT OF APPEALS, FRIDAY