Morning journal and courier., 1883-07-30
Important Court Decisions

The Supreme Court = Decision in the
 MalAey Insurance Case Against the
 PlaintiH-Other Decisions.
 Four important cases were decided on Sat- urday by the Supreme Court of Errors the most unexpected of which was that of Ed ward Malley vs. the Atlantic Fire and Marine Insurance company of Providence, R. l. The Supreme court decides against Mr. MaIley.. the judgment reading as follows: "Judgment is advised for defendants. Reasons by Judge Pardee." It will be remembered that on February 27, 1882, Malley's dry goods store was almost totally destroyed by fire. At that time he carried $127, 1000 insurance This was on the stock. The appraisers, sent to adjust the loss could not agree with Mir. Nal. ley who claimed loss of more than the en- tire face of all the policies and that he lost in all $139, 761. .86 or over SIP, QUO more than
 the insurance. The insurance companies un- successfully attempted compromise, and 8 law suit followed. It was agreed between
 the parties that 8 test case. should be made
 with single company, and the Atlantic Fire
 and Marine of Providence was selected. The Insurance company was represented by F.
 Chamberlain of Hartford and John w. Aling
 of this city. John s. Beach, Esq, Ex-Judge Samuel l.. Bronson and Ex-Judge Blyden-
 burgh of this city appeared for MT. Malley.
 On the following January by an agreement one William Nicely, of New York, was taken into partnership and the business thereafter was conducted under the firm name of B. Nal ley Co.so far as purchasing goods to the amount of $76, ITS S8 was concerned, while at the bank (the Merchants NationaD the &C., count remained in the name of Edward Nal ley and the notes and checks paid out were signed by him. The defendant also set forth that the plaintiff did not use his best endeav- ors to save the property from damage at and after the fire as he was required to do by the terms of his policy, whereby the damage was greatly increased
 The case came up before Judge Beardsley at the June term of the Superior court and after all the evidence on both sides had been reserved for the advice and consider atlon of the Supreme Court of Err TOTS which assembled at New Haven on the first Tuesday of June last. MT. Mall ley was insured through 8 number of agen- cies la about fifty companies, located in diff ferent parts of the United States and Great Britain and in Germany, and the decision of the Supreme court of Connecticut in favor of the insurance companies will attract uni versal attention. It is conceded that MT. Malley or the firm of Malley & Go. lost 8 great many thousand dollars by the fire and upon upon which he had promptly paid his premiums. That he would lose his insurance by what many claimed mere technicality was doubted by the public generally.
 In the argument by Mir. Beach it was said, t'The sole defiance as then Cat the lower court) and now interposed by the defend ants is, that although MT. Malley was the undisputed owner of the insured merchRn disc at the time: he took out his policies and remained it's real and substantial owner at the time of the fire, yet they can lawfully keep the premiums and escape liability, be- cause few weeks before the fire Mr. Malley signed an agreement for partnership with Mir. Nicely, under which Nicely became in contemplation of law a joint owner of the capital stock, and as the words of the policy read that the contract shall be void in case Of 'fany changesof title" the law will release them from their obligations"
 This single case we understand stands upon it's own bottom and does not affect the right of Mir. Malley to sue the other com panies. Mr. Malley with his characteristic energy and pluck proposes if necessary to press the battle further with each company. He says that the sum due him now from in surance on the stock amounts with interest to about $125,000. He says he has been a pretty good patron of insurance companies during his thirty years and more of active business and has insured with some of the companies who held policies on tho stock for from twenty to twenty-five years. Two of the companies who held policies on the stock paid up long ago,-the North German and the Kings County, both of New York The insurance on the burned buildings was also paid long since. The companies holding out are the following
 Atlantic Fire and Marine, Providence; Bos- ton Mutual, Boston; Mercantile Fire and Marine, Boston; Metropolitan, Boston; North American, Boston, Prescott, Boston; Fire mems Fund, of San Francisco; Union, of San Francisco; First National, Worcester, Mass; Glens Falls, New York; Guardian, New York; Hamburg Bremen; Hamburg, Howard, New York; I'm perial and Northern, New York; Importers and Traders, New York; | La Confance, New York; Lancashire, New York; London Assurance, London; Manhat tan, New York; Manufacturers & Builders, New York; Montauk, New York; Newark Fire Newark, N. J.. Newark City, Newark, N. J.; New Hampshire Fire, Manchester, N. l H.; New York Fire, New York; New York l City, New York; Niagara, New York; North ! western National, Milwaukee; Park, New York; Peoples, New York; Peoples Fire, | New York; Queens, New York; Relief, New | York; Standard, New York; Scottish Union, | Tradesmen's New York.
 OTHER CASES DECIDED.
 In the case of Isaac N. Damn vs Henry J. | Woodruff ct ux, judgment is advised for 'A6AAlAA AOA OA 5oW0E h5S6SSm6QC Reasons by Judge Pardee. In March, 1874, he defendants mortgaged to plaintiff of 'roperty on Orange strert to secure $2, 800 lote. By foreclosure the property came into he plaintiff s possession, but liens amount ng 0 $235. 94 remained unpaid. The defenda mt efused to pay the same and suit was brought 'efore Judge Torrance in the Court of Corn- non Pleas, and by mutual consent was re erved for advice of the Supreme court.
 The case of Samuel Atwater vs. Charles I 'erkins was decided as follows: Judgment ! 3 advised for the defendant. Reasons by Thief Justice Park.
 This is a Waterbury case, which involves 1 he possession of certain property and privi- ! sges, which by mutual consent was reserved ! or the Supreme court to decide upon.
 In the case of William Gardner vs. the lew Haven and Northampton company, he Supreme court through Judge Granger avs there is an error, and a new rial IS ordered The plaintiff, while riding 2 freight car with horse, was injured by n accident and sought to recover $1O,OOO amages. The case was tried before Judge ndrews, who awarded 1000 damages for he plaintiff. An appeal was taken with re- ults as already stated. li On the application of Henry C. Rowe the efendants' appeaD The Supreme court trough Judge Pardee, finds error and judg- lent is reversed. The original suit I /, as between Rowe and Willis M. and ] iley T. Smith of this city, over a isputed oyster boundary line, which was < jed in the Court of Common Pleas. The . ase had been pending since 1878, went be- 5 're a jury in December of the same year, nd verdict was rendered for the plain : fl. The case went to a committee which , titled upon boundary line and then the { lse went back to the Court of Common { leas, where the judge found issue for the ! Iaintif to recover $24 damages and his , osts
 Tar and Feathers. IT The peaceable citizens of the little village l Trunbull became filled with indignation
 the conduct of one Charles Houston, and 7 ley took vengeance upon him last Thursday t otn hnd ! ..