St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-10-16
nice POINT OF law.
The Supreme Court Holds the
Terms Of an Insurance
Policy Violated
BY A CHATTEL MORTGAGE.
Five Decisions Are Handed
Down, All Written by
Justice CAVITY.
PARTY FRACTIONAL FIGHT.
That Of Republicans of ltasea
County Settled by the
Court.

The supreme court handed down four
decisions yesterday. all or which were
written by Justice Canty. The lmpor-
tant one was the case of The First Ma
tlonaI Bank of Devils Lake, N. d.,
respondent. against The American In
surance Company of st. Louis. appel
liant. In this is involved nice legal
point. The action was brought by the
bank to recover on policy it held as
MORTGAGE on an elevator at Fargo.
The insurance company refused TO make
good the loss when it occurred. on the
ground that the conditions of the policy
had been violated IN three particulars.
The case is one that was left over from
last term. as the whole court was I'M
able to agree on the point that hnally
saved the insurance company. On the
two first conditions which the company
alleges had been violated, namely, that
no correct proof of loss was served on
the company; and second, that i'll VIOLA
tion Of clause prohibiting the placing
of any more insurance, $1,000 addi-
tional had been placed on the plant ana
grain, and that the policy contained
printed condition that rendered II Void
if the property insured Is personal
property. and If it should become in
numbered with chattel mortgage.
This point, of course,
saved the Company,
as otherwise, after placing large lnsur-
ance on any personal property, chattel
mortgage could be given, and IN the
event Of the property being DESTROYED
more than the value could be recovered.
Er..f
nany alleged that instead OF submitting
= nroof of loss. a sworn statement was
made. but the court holds that the COM
many did not attend to defects in the
returns by retaining the policy. AS TO
the LOCO concurrent insurance, 1t is
shown that the insurance company gave
verbal permission to place 1t On the
nronerty. and that by clerical error
when The amount was inserted In the
nolicv If was made only $1,000, and that
tie company knew this concurrent IN
sura, &c was there at the time it deltv-
cred the policy, so it waived its rights IN
that direction. But when the hnal
point as TO the chattel mortgage comes
up.the court holds that the written por-
ton of the policy insuring the properly
OF the insured Its owner nelo ny IL IN
trust or on commission, or sold out not
deliyered.' did not annul or superSede
in the policy against chattel mortgage
incumbraIce, and the placing OF the
mortgage on the property Yolded the
policy.
The syllabus is as follows:
First Sational Bank of Devil s Lake. respond
eut. VS.. American Central Insurance COM
pany, st. Louis, appellant. Order reversed.
P"N'' CAVITY, j..
In an action brought against an insur-
arcc company on policy OF Insurance.
to recover a loss:
|. Held that it appears by the an
swer that proof of loss was serYeu oh
the insurer, and if such PROOF was ae-
fec,iVe that the defect Was Waifeu Wy ITO
retaining such proof.
. Where the policy provided that It
should be void if the insured procured
other insurance on the property, but 1t
was orally agreed between the insurer
and the insured that permission should
he given the insured to procure $ll. 900
other concurrent insurance. and that
this nermission should be inserted III
the policy. but, by clerical mistake. per-
mission was SO inserted for only $1,000
other insurance, and there was on the
nronerty at the time this policy was de.
liyered 81 COO other insurance, which
the agent Of the insurer knew:
Following Brandup VS.. insurance
COMPANY, 81 Mimi. 1893. by delivering
the policy. knowing the existence or
such other insurance, the insurer waived
this condition.
g The policy contained printed
condition yoiding it if the subject OF
the insurance is personal property and
he or become encountered with chattel
mortgage.
Held. the subsequent written portion
of the policy inSurlng the property OF
The insured. tits own or held by it IN
trn.f or on commission or sold, but not
delivered. F." did not annul or supersede
the condition against such chattel mort.
gage iucumbrauce, and the Placing OF
such an incumbrahce on the properly
after the making of the policy ana be-
fore the loss avoided the policy.
Other Cases Decided.
TIVE svilabi ill other decisions are as
follows:
Nate n. Palmer. respondent, VS.. William
began. appellant. Order affirmed.
Nf CAVITY, ].
Held. the findings of fact are sus-
tanned by the evidence except as to the
sum of 81 cents awarded plaintiff.
The maxim ''do mlnlmlS non cural
lex" applied.
Held, there being no other or greater
rights involved, either directly or col
Iaterally, in this error that the amount
of this SO cents and the cost OF this APP
neal the amount of the error is too small
10 Justify a reversal, especially as II