St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-06-03
The Hail Insurance Company
Suffers Defeat at the
Courts Hands.
A Famous Bigamy Case
Passed Upon by the Su-
preme Court.
Several Important Suits From
Minneapolis Pass Through
the Big Mill.
The Supreme Court Grinds
Out the Biggest Days
Work Recorded.

Yesterday was red letter day in the
supreme court. Eighteen decisions OF
varying Importance were handed down.
Unusual interest attaches to one case in
particular, namely, that of Franklin >.
Schrieber. respondent, against The Ger
man-American Hail Insurance COM
pany, appellent. 1t is unique case,
and involves principles in law alike i'm
portant to the insured and the insurer.
1t is related that the plaintiff in the ac-
ton in the courts below, and respondent
in the supreme court, is Clay county
farmer who held two insurance policies
in the German-American company upon
his crops. One was on forty
acres of barley and the other
upon 120 acres of oats. In
payment for the premium SchrIeber eX-
ecuted promiSSOrY notes which were &C
cepted in accordance with stipulation
with the agent of the company. 1t tran
spired that Schrieber's farm was visited
by a hail storm, and he subsequently
made application for payment to him by
the Hail Insurance company for the
loss entailed by the storm. According to
the novel wording Of the policies held by
him, he was compelled to advance $40
as compensation for three arbitrator to
be appointed by the insurance COM
pany. Well, the insurance company,
pursuant to this extraordinary clause
in the policy, appointed its three
arbitrator, and the latter in
spected the crops entirely without
the knowledge of Farmer Schrleber,
and they reported that no loss had
accrued owing to the alleged condition
of the crops. They amplified by eX-
planning that both the oats and barley
had been ripe and ready for the harvest
five days prior to the visit of the storm.
Thereupor the insurance company per-
emptorJly refused to pay the loss
claimed by the farmer. Meanwhile the
premium rates had not been paid, and
the farmer was disposed to let the mat
ter drop. Not so with the insurance
company, however. Legal proceedings
were forthwith begun to collect these
notes and judgment was given the
company, and upon an execution issuing
Schrieber was compelled to pay the
amount of the judgment
This action was followed by suit
against the company to recover S2,965
and costs as the estimated loss upon the
crop from the hail storm. In answer to
the complaint the insurance company
alleged that the policies were null and
void owing to an error in part in de-
inadvertently Schrieber had given The
description of another mans lands. The
jury returned a verdict in the case for
S3,S76.15, and from this judgment the
insurance company took an appeal to
the supreme court. Chief Justice Gil
fillan gives a lucid statement of the
cause in the following syllabus;
Franklin j. Schrieber, respondent VS.. Ger
man-American Hail Insurance Company.
appellant Order affirmed.
G1LF1LLAN, C. j.
A condition in a policy Of insurance
that in case any of the representations
or statements in the application are I'M
true the policy shall be null and void,
does not make the policy absolutely
void, but void only at the election of the
insurer. In case of electionto avoid the
policy it becomes void in toto and from
the beginning, so that the insurer can
not avoid it and enforce the promise of
the assured to pay the premium. After
a loss on the policy, with that condition,
the insurer broughG suit against the in
sured cd the premium note, took 1udg-
ment and collected it by execution.
Held. that although thus enforcing pay
ment of the note, if done without notice
of the breach of condition, would not be
waiver of its right to avoid the policy,
yet the retention, after notice of the
breach, of the money thus collected,
would be waiver. After Tearing of
the breach the insurer could not elect
to avoid the policy without returning,
or offering to return, the money SO col
lected. Two applications for insur-
ance of crops-one upon 40 acres OF bar
ley in the north half of section %, ETC.,
and one upon 100 acres Of oats in the
same half sectlon-Were made at the
same time by the same person to de-
PENDANT, and two policies thereupOn
were issued by defendant at the same
time. In the body of each policy, in
print, coming after the description of
the land, partly in print and partly in
writing, was a clause that would limit
the number of acres specified to strip
next to and along the northern line of
the section of sufficient width to make
the specified number of acres. There
was no such clause in either applica-
ton. Reading the two policies to-
gether, and giving effect to that clause
in each they assume to insure 120 acres
of oats, covering strip sixty rods wide
alongeand next to the north line of the
section, and forty acres of barley within
the strip covered by the oats. Held,
that to determine whether the clause is
operative in either policy, the court will
read the the two applications and the
two policies together, and as the Teten-
ton of the clause leads to an unreason-
able and absurd result, and makes the
description inconsistent, it must be re-
jected from each policy; and according
to the terms of the policies if the in
sured and the agent of the insurer, pies
ent to adjust loss, should be unable to
agree, the former was to deposit with
the agent $40 to pay the expenses of all
appraiSement of the loss and the agent
was thereupon to appoint three apprais-
ers who should Immediately repair to
the field where the loss occurred and
appraise the loss or damage. Held, that
an appraisement without notice to the
insured of the appointment of the APP
praiserS and of the time when they were
to make an examination was void. An
affidavit of the president of the defend
ant. made to procure continuance in
this action for the absence of witness,
is competent evidence against this de-
PENDANT that the witness was agent OF
the defendant and had authority from il
as stated in the affidavit.