The Portland daily press., 1894-07-20
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

LdaU Court.
The following cases were disposed of by
the Law court yesterday:
ADRoSCoGGIN COUNTY.
| Olive o. Robinson aplt from decree OF
judge of probate; estate of Charles P. NJ.
Kenney. Argued orally.
n. & J.. A. Morrill,.
James Woods in eq. VS.. the city of Auburn
ct ais. Argued orally.
savage Cakes. James A. Pulsifer.
Ferdinand Penley VS.. Charles S. Bessey.
Argued orally.
N. & ]. A. Morrill,. Noble & Crockett,
Thomas Lapage VS.. Benjamin j. Hill.
Argued orally.
Noble & Crockett. George G. Wing.
WASHINGTON COUNTY.
Israel Leavitt VS.. John Lamon ct ais.
Motion overruled for want of prosecution.
Rogers. McNichol. J. H. McFaul. Lynch.
YORK COUNTY.
Samuel P. Smith VS.. California Insurance
Co. Argued orally.
George F. Haley. Edwin Stone.
Laura E. Greaves VS.. Henry l. Lord
Argued in writing.
Hamilton & Cleaves. 10. Bradbury.
C.S. Hamilton. r.
Patrick E. Gleason VS.. Peter H. Marcelle
Exceptions overruled for want of prosecu-
ton.
Hamilton.and Cleaves. Edwin Stone.
Albert H. Lord VS.. The City of Saco.
Argued orally.
Hamilton & Cleaves. George A. Emery.
city solicitor.
George G. Yeaton.
Frank G. Allen VS.. The Boston & Maine
Railroad. Argued orally.
j. y. Bradbury. George G. Yeaton
Wilson S. Cheney ct ais, in equity VS..
Leroy P. Goodwin ct ais. Argued in writing.
| Samuel M. Came. Law and Haley
Hamilton and Cleaves, George f. HALEY
J. W. Symonds
Charles D. Preble VS.. John H. Sanborn.
Argued in writings
Jas. 7. Davidson.
Walter 81. Downs.
Fairfield and Moore
The following rescripts were sent down
from the Law court:
ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY.
Isaiah Donnell, in equity VS.. Kingsbury
Donell ct ais.
Rescript by Waterhouse, J.-Fire insur-
ance is, in effect, contract of indemnity
against loss or damage suffered by an owner
or person having an interest in the property
insured.
An attaching creditor has an insurable
interest in the buildings covered by his at
tachment. But where he fails to procure
any insurance on such interest and the
debtor takes out policy at his own ex-
pense, held; that the latter effects insur-
ance on his own interest in the property
and not on that of his creditor.
After the adjustment and payment of loss
under such policy, the funds being held
through an assignment of the debtor to his
sureties and a mortgage of the premises in
sured, the creditor claimed on account of
the unsatsfed part of his judgment a lien
on the insuIanc money, and of which there
was an excess in the hands of the sureties
above their claim, upon the ground that the
mortgage and assignment of the policy was
in fraud of his rights. Upon bill in equity
to enforce the lien, held; That the bill can
not be su stained that there is no priyity of
contract or of estate, between the plaintiff
and either of the defendants that we@could
form basis for such Ii en-.
Also, that the assignment of the policy
to the sureties with the consent of the COM
pany was a new and original contract of in
demnity with the assignees, who were not
indebted to the plaintiff. and who had no
contractual relations with him. Bill dis
missed with costs.
KNOX COUNTY.
City of Rockland VS.. Mary C. Fansworth,
The defendants tax for the year 1856 was
$3.50. Upon this tax she paid 1872, leaving a
balance of $3.50 unpaid for which this suit
is brought.
The defendant contends that the city tax
is invalid, and we think it is. Nothing has
been called...to our misunderstanding the
state and county taxes that are included in
the assessment against the defendant
aggregate more than that sum. They
amount to S9S.06. Moreover, the So, paid
was levied upon real estate, and was APP
piled by the parties to the payment of that
tax. which included state. county and city
taxes. Being paid in reduction of the
defendants tax, it leaves balance of $3.50
Low sued for. OF this sum SSO.70 is state
and county tax, and although assessed in
solido with the city tax against the defend
ant, appears to be valid tax and may be
nradi r,f