St. Paul daily globe., 1895-12-25
THE HIGHER COURT.
A NUMBER OF DECISIONS AND
ORDERS FILED YESTER-
DAY.
FIRE INSURANCE CASE.
LOWER COURT,S FINDINGS AP-
PROVED IN QUESTION OF
a POLICY.
STATE AGAINST e. J. FLINT.
Application of the Respondent to
I2ave Certain Conclusions De-
nicd or Modified.

Justice Mitchell, of the supreme
court, handed down five decisions late
yesterday afternoon. In the case of
Charles H. Ermentraut and Charles
H. MaXey against The Girard Fire and
Marine Insurance Company of Phila-
delphia Justice Canty dissents from the
opinion of the majority of the court.
The syllabus CT the case follows:
Charles h. Ermenuaut and Charles H;
MaNey, appellants, VS.. The Girard
Fire x Marine Insurance Company,
Of Philadelphia, respondent.
Action on a policy inSurinS plaintlffs
on their building against all direct
loss or damage by fire" The policy
further provided that, if the building
fell, except as Il result of fire, the
insurance on the building should i'm
mediately cease.
There was evidence tending to prove
that a building adjacent to the one in
Sured Uhe wall between them being Il
PARTITION walD caught fire and was par
TALLY consumed, and, as the direct re-
suit of such fire fell. carrying with it
the partition wall and part of the in
sured building. Held, that, if such
were the facts. the fail Of the insured
building was the result of fire" and
"a direct loss or damage by fire al
though no part Of il ignited or was con-
Sumed by fire.
/ ne WOru ull6ct III the pGlLty Is
construed as meaning Immediate or
proXimate as distinguished from re-
mote.
The policy provided that IF fire oc-
cur the insured shall give immediate
notice of any loss thereby in writing TO
the company
Held, that a failure to give such no.
tice for nearly sixty days after the fire,
constituted, as a matter Of law,
breach of this provision.
n
company who issued the policy had au-
Jhority to accept applications for in
SUrance, TO fix the rate of insurance, fill
up. countersign and issue the policies
(Which they received from the COM
pany signed by its general officer) and
collect the premiums.
There was no evidence that they
We're clothed with any apparent au-
thority other or greater than their ac-
tual authority.
Held that it was not within the
scope of their authority to accept or
waive notice of loss; following other
decisions.
liability on it had ceased by reason of
plaintiffs failure to give notice of loss
they transmitted proofs of loss to the
general managers of the company, who
retained the proofs but notified the
plaintiffs that they denied any liza
bility under the policy on the part OF
the company"
Held. no waiver of plaintiffs failure
to give notice of loss.
Order affirmed, Mitchell, j.
John K Fuller, appellant, VS.. Eleanor
Quesnel. formerly Eleanor Langevln,
respondent.
conclusively proved that defendant was
a mere surety on the note sued on and
that, with knowledge of that fact, the
plaintiff, without her consent granted
an extension of the time OF payment TO
the principal debtor. +'.,
= Reply construed as admitting that an
extension was in fact given to the
principal debtor.
To charge the plaintiff with notice
that defendant was a surety it was not
necessary that he had actual knowl-
edge of the fact. OF was guilty of bad
faith in not making inquiry. 1t was
sufficient if he had knowledge of such
facts as would have put reasonably
prudent man upon inquiry which,, II
followed up, would have presumably
resulted in knowledge of the fact.
The first rule only applies to the pur-
chase of negotiable paper for value be-
fore maturity, but in dealing with the
parties to the paper after it is pur-
chased the usual and ordinary rule
as to notice applies.
Order affirmed, Mitchell, j.
Oliver G. Traphagen ct al, respond
ents, VS.. Charles H. Sager ct al, ap-
pellantS.
PLAINTIFFS, defendants and certain
third parties had severally subscribed
for shares of the stock of a corporation.
The defendants had taken and paid for
the stock for which they had sub
scr:bed, but the plaintiffs and some of
the third parties had refused to take
or pay for theirs, but finally each of
these "repudiating'' subscribers, eX-
cept the plaintiffs, agreed to do so II
all the others would. The plaintiffs
hGp of In r1tc
in order to induce the other subscribers
to take their stock, agreed with plain
tifrs that # they would take and pay
for the stock for which they had sub
scribed, they (defendants) would there
after buy it from them and take it off
their hands. In pursuance of this
agreement plaintiffs took. and paid for
their stock and defendants executed
price. The other "repudiating" sub
sciibers thereupon took and paid for
their stock, being kept in ignorance of
the agreement between plaintiffs and
defendants.
Held, that the agreement between
plaintiffs and defendants was not a
fraud on the other subscribers (assum-
ing that their subscriptions for stock
were binding contracts), and that the
note executed by defendants to plain
tiffs was valid.
Judgment affirmed. Mitchell, J.
Theodore Welland, as assignee of
Frank Nicolin, respondent, VS.. Gus F.
Sunwall ct al, defendants. Scott Coun-
ty Bank, appellant.
Theodore Weiland, as assignee of
Frank Nicolin, respondent, VS. Gus r.
Sunwall ct al, defendants. James An
derson, appellant.
Theodore Weiland, as assignee of
Frank Nicolin, appellant, VS.. Gus F.
Sunwall ct al. defendants. New Rich
land Milling Co., respondent
Theodore Weiland, as assignee of
Frank Nicolin, respondent, VS.. Gus F.
Sunwall ct al, defendants Gus F..
Sunwall, appellant
Evidence considered and held to JUS
tify the findings of fact that certain
transactions constituted sales and not
bailments, and that another transac-
ton constituted a bailment and not a
sale. Also that the facts found justi-
fled the conclusions of law except in
one particular as to which the con-
clus:on of law and order for judgment
is modified. Mitchell, ].
Theodore Weiland, as assignee of
Frank Nicolin. insolvent, respondent.
VS.. Jacob Krejnick ct al, appellants
Theodore Weiland, as assignee of
Frank Nicolin, respondent, vs. Jacob
Krejnick ct al, appellants.