The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-11-15
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
ocroBER Tt.RM. isaa
Reported Weekly for me Clarion By Robert
shotwsll. Attornsy-atIsY.
LIvKrpooG s LoxDox s GLoBE Iss. Co. j
Tee HOE IssuaaseE Go. q Ngm YosK.l

| Appeal from Circuit Court Kinds Co., Isl Dis
triet. Hon. S. S. Caihoon. Judge
These three cases were tried aud submitted
I jury being waived, together in the Court be-
low and were so considered in this Court.
On the 24th day of February, 1880, ". d
Sorsby applied for and obtained policy in the
! Liverpool & London i Globe Fire Insurance
/ Company for s., 600 on his stock Of goods in
| the town of Terry. On the 9Th day of 0cto-
/ her, 1880 he applied for and obtained a policy
| for 5000 in the Home Insurance Company OF
New York on the same stock of goods. On the
/ 18th day of October. 1880, another policy was
obtained by him in the Hanover Fire Insurance
Company foe s., 700 on the same stock. On
! the 30th day Of November, 1880 the entire
stock vas wholly destroyed by fire and these
| suits were brought TO recover the various
amounts called for hy the policies.
| Onthe .Sthday of December, 1880, and before
the bringing of the salts the three policies had
been transferred TO +. L. Sorsby, brother OF
| the assured, to secure him in an iadebtedn :ss
due to him. This transfer WAS assailed By the
creditors of W. B. Sersby fraudulent and
void in the Chaneery Court, and L. F. Cbiles
was in that Court appointed a receiver to sue
on the policies at law and to bring in the
money when realized into the Chaucery Court
to await the orders of that Court rs 10 its dis
trihution. The suits were brought in. the
style, ". B. Sorsby, use Of L. T. Chiles'' and
the declarations failed to disclose the author
ity OF Chiles to sue. The defendants pleaded
these facts in special plea in bar, which,
however, had the opening and closing of pleas
in abatement. To the pleas replicatious were
interposed, setting up the tendency Of the
Chancery suits and the appointment OF Chlles
receiver 10 bring the suits. To these replica
tions demurrers were interposed and by the
Court below overruled. The defendants then
pleaded directly to the declarations, the gem
eral issue.
The action of the Court in overriding the
dafa fStd IN nix q.
Iions to tfeir special pleas in bar is assigned
for error. All three of the companies rely upon
insuficiency of proofs of loss" furnished by
the assured TO defeat recovery. These proofs
were fatally defective. They were forwarded
by the assured on the 18th day Of January,
1881 TO all three Of the companies. The Lon
don & Liverpool & Globe received them in ST.
lence. The Hanover acknowledged the receipt
of what purPOrted 10 be proofs of loss, but
replied promptly that they were insufficient, !
of the policy as to what would consti- |
tute sufficient proof. The Home Company |
received the proof and offered to return same
claiming that they were not liable because |
the assured had procured additional assur- |
anee IN the Hanover for $500 without their |
knowledge or consent, and consequently that
his policy in their Company was void.
The appellee relies upon the fact that i'm
mediately after the fire the three Companies
sent their adjusters to Terry who put Sorsby
d
ulars of the loss and their offer to him of $40 |
900 based upon an estimate of the actual loss,
as a waiver of the proof with reference to the
Hanover.
The Home Company relies further upon the
condition in their policy, that if the assured
shall have or shall hereafter make any other
insurance on the property hereby insured on
any part thereof without the consent of the
Company written thereon this policy
shall be void" The policy in the Home, is
sued on the 9th, of October, 1880,
and on the 18th October, 1850, the
Hanover issued to insured its policy
Tor 5000 on the same property with
out the consent of the Home endorsed as pro-
Fided The appellee claims that the require
nept of this consent was waived by the fact
hat when Sorsby made his application for in
.urance in the Home he told Braey, their local
agent or solicitor at Terry, that he intended :
o take out policy for $500 in some other
Company, to which Bracy consented, and that c
he afterwards told Braey that he had taken
,ut the policy in the Hanover and Bracy re-
1lied it was all right.
The court below rendered judgments in fav
IT of the plaintiff
T. j. and F. A. r. Wharton for appellants.
Nugent s. Melville, J. A. Brown, R. Shot
veil, contra.
CAMPBELL, CD