The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-03-19
HE PAID AFTER FIRE.
VERY NOVEL INSURANCE CASE.

controversy About "A Sussex Barn and CroI
Of Peanuts and Alleged Insurance There
! on.
In the case OF Haskin rs. The Agricul
tural Fire-lnsurance Company recently
decided in the Court OF Appeals the con
troversy was one concerning an alleged
contract OF insurance made before the fir,
which destroyed the property occurred
and the premiums paid and the policie,
issued after the total destruction Of thu
insurable subject. the insured knowing
and the insurer not knowing OF the de
struction OF the property at the time the
premium was paid and the application
sent in. The case Is one OF interest TO Tho
general public, rs well as TO the legal pro,
fessiou.
Messrs. Friend & Davis. OF Petersburg
represented the appellant, and Colonel
John B. Young the appellee.
In delivering the unanimous opinion oI
the court Judge Lacy said:
The case Is as follows: The appellant
claims that on the 10th day OF December
1879, the SAID appellant contracted with the
appellee TO insure his barn, in the counts
OF Sussex. Va, together with peanut:
stored therein, the risk on both barn aud
peanuts to commence on that day; that the
premium notes were agreed. and were tC
be paid on request; that in consideration
OF the sum so agreed TO be paid the said
company agreed 10 insure him against loss
or damage by fire; that on the 22d OF De-
cember the sad property so agreed tO
be insured was totally destroyed by
fire without fault on the part of the
plaintiff; that the plaintiff then paid the
agent OF the company the premiums. and
took bis receipt therefor; that the defend
ant company refused TO deliver the policies
or to pay his losses. The suit is for specific
performance, that the defendant company
may be compelled to pay these losses.
THE BARN AND PEANUTS.
The defendant company. on the other
hand, positively denies all the allegations
Of the plaintiff; denies that it ever made or
entered into any contract Of insurance with
the plaintiff. and it denies that it ever
promised or agreed with the plaintiff to
issue and deliver to him policy OF in
surance in conformity with any such al
legged agreement. That one Brooke Plea
SAINTS. solicitor OF insurance, without any
authority to make contracts for or to issue
policies OF insurance for the said company,
saw the plaintiff in the month Of Noyem-
farm buildings he might have in the said
company; that the plaintiff inquired OF said
solicitor what would be the rate OF pre-
MUM charged by SAID company on dwell
Ing and barn. with small engine attached.
and stables, in Sussex county. The said
solicitor not knowing himself the rate Of
said insurance, agreed TO write, and did
write accordingly, to the State agent OF the
said company in the city of Richmond for
information as to such rates, and received
from said agent reply stating The rates at
which such property could be insured in
said company. The substance of the reply
of the State agent as TO such rates was COM
municated by said solicitor to the said
plaintiff. and at a subsequent interview be-
tween the said solicitor and the said plain
tiff the latter expressed his willingness to
have portion OF the property above re-
| ferred to insured-to wit, the barn and
some peanuts thercin-but said that he had
no money then to pay the insurance pre-
MUM thereon. The said SolicitornOt being
able to give the complainant information as
to the legal effect upon the validity OF an
insurance, OF failure TO prepay the pre-
MUM, the matter was for the time dropped
or suspended. No application for insur-
ance was then prepared or transmitted by
said solicitor to the State agent in Rich
mond. on behalf of the complainant, nor
did the said State agent know until after
the property in question had been burned
that the conn lainant was the person in
whose behalf said inquiries rs to rates had
! been made.
THE BARN BURNT.
Thus the matter rested until the barn
and the peanuts had been totally consumed
by fire on the night of the 22d OF Decem-
ber, 1879. The complainant learned Of the
/ fire in the forenoon OF December 23d, the
next day, and forthwith commenced look
ing for the said solicitor, the residence
of both being in or near the city
! of Petersburg, with the object OF
attempting to avail himself of what
had passed between them previously,
for the purpose OF perfecting a policy
Of insurance on the property already de-
stroyed by fire before the fact of the de-
struction of the property by fire had be-
/ come known TO the said solicitor or to the
State agent OF said company at Richmond.
| The complainant having found the solicitor
on that day, stated to him that he had now
obtained the money necessary to pay the
premiums of said insurance on said pro-
perty, and desired to obtain policy or
| policies therefor. The said solicitor then
made the usual memorandum for al appli-
cation OH behalf OF the complainant for the
| issuing of policy or policies on the pro-
perty to be insured, and forwarded the ap-
plication to the State agent at Richmond,
with the request, at the instance and re-
quest OF the plaintiff. that the policies
| should relate back TO the 10th day OF De-
cember, 1870, which said plaintiff said was
| the date OF the last interview between the
said plaintiff and the said solicitor.
THE POLICIES.
The policies were made out and for
warded to The solicitor, with directions
not TO deliver them until farther inf0rma-
ton was had as to the location OF the steam
engine attached to the barn. The policies
were rejected by the plaintiff because OF
the statement contained therein that there
was no incumbrance on the property, and
were returned. The policies, at the re-
quest OF the plaintiff, were returned by the
solicitor TO the State agent for correction.
The solicitor then learned that the property
had been DESTROYED by fire. From the
nlaintiff. the solicitor returned the policies
10 the state agent at Richmond, with the
information that before The application
was made and before the premium was
paid the property had been totally
DESTROYED by fire; whereupon the sald
State agent at Richmond retained the poll
cIes and refused to deliver them; that there
never was any binding contract made Tor
the insurance OF this property in either the
plaintiff or the defendant company while
the said property was in existence. Iesu-
mony was taken IN the cause on Doth SUES,
and upon the hearing ON the Z9th uay 0,
June, 1880, the ChanceTy Court dismissed
the bill Of the plaintiff. From TINS decree
on the I'd day Of May, 1857, the appeiiaht
nnnlied for and obtained an appeal TO