The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1896-01-22
Court Echoes.

of the complex Baker ballot law, whicl
were raised for the first time i'm the tria
of this case.
We have not time or space at this time
to give history of the case, and must,
therefore, content ourselves for the pres
ent with brief summary of the ques'
tions involved.
Judge Greer held that the Act of AS
sembly specified what should be pub
lished and prescribed the form in which
IL should be published, but leaves il TO the
option of the Sheriff whether it should
lie 10y posters in the several election dis
tricts, or by publication in two or more
newspapers. He also held that the coun-
ty commissioners had no more tO say in
regard To its publication or the space it
should occupy than the man in the moon,
except as it effected them as tax payers.
The case at issue was an action brought
against the County of Somerset by \. III.
Coifroih, Jr., formerly proprietor of the
Democrat, for SIS. 80, after the County
Commissioners had arbitrarily refused
TO pay his bill for the publication of the
Sheriif's several proclamations. On the
trial of the case the Commissioners, who
were represented by high-priced lawyers,
argued that the Sheriff was subordinate to
the Commissioners and had exceeded his
authority in publishing the proclamation,
and therefore, the County was not liable.
Judge Greer knocked this argument into
smithereens, as appears above, and
said that unless the Commissioners could
show that the Sheriff had failed TO exer-
else proper care, or had resorted To fraud
or entered into a conspiracy, there was
nothing in the case. At the same time
his Honor took occasion to point out
what might be expected 10 follow in the
wake of this suit in case il was decided
in favor of the County. He said that not
a bridge could be built, or piece of pub
lie property repaired or improved, unless
the door would he let open for some one
10 come in and file objections and the
time of the court would he occupied al
most entirely i'm the trial Of cases of this
character. whereas the Law had clearly
defined the duties and responsibilities OF
the various county officials. In charging
the jury his Honor directed them TO cut
out of the proclamation all matter not
especially directed to appear in ii by the
Act of Assembly.
The jury was out long enough TO meas
urc up the different proclamations when
they returned verdict in favor of the
plaintiff for S3l30a.
Messrs. Cofroth & Ruppel, who APP
peared for the plaintiff, had prepared
their case i'm their usual careful manner
and succos ssfully met and contrOverted
every proposition raised by the defend
ants counsel. Gen. Coffroth's address to
the jury was especially happy and APP
peared TO be greatly enjoyed 10y all who
heard it. Messrs. W. j. Baer and koontz
d Ogle appeared for the defendants.
The case attracted general attention and
was the subject OF conversation on the
streets and at the hotels and stores. So
far as we have been able to gather public
sentiment it is almost unanimous in IA
vor of the plaintiff aad the verdict of the
jury is pronounced a righteous and just
one.
\ case involving a nice legal PROPOSE
sition and a considerable sum of moEey
attracted more than the usual amount of
attention last week.
The facts in the ease are as fol-
lows: James Corooran, a resident OF
Cleariield county, Pa, took out and paid
up a policy On his life, in favor of his wife
Frances, and their children, should she
die before her husband for $1,000 in the
Mutual Lie Insurance Company OF New
York. For loan of =. go to w. II. Dill,
a resident pf the same county, he gave
the policy OF insurance rs collateral Sc
curity, his wife joining in the assignment
of the policy to Dill. Some time during
the year 1894 Dill assigned the policy for
like value TO the use of :. B. Philson, OF
Neversdale. In accordance with one OF
the conditions printed in the policy,
Philson wrote the Insurance Company oi
the assignment of the Corcoran policy by
the Corcorans to Dill and by Dill to him.
The Insurance company acknowledge
ed the receipt of Philson's communica-
ton and requested that in the future he
communicate with the Company through
their Philadelphia office. As will be
seen further along Philson's case rested
largely upon the directions furnished by
this letter, which, like prudent business
man, he carefully preserved. Philson
forwarded the policy of Insurance, to
which the assignment from Corcoran To
Dill! aud from Dill to himself were at
tached to friend in Philadelphia with
the request that he exhibit the policy al
the Gompany's Office III that city and as
certain if it were in correct shape and
get their directions. IL was proven on
the trial that the policy was presented al
the Company's Philadelphia office, where
it WAS examined by one of the company
employees, compared with the records, and
pronounced all right and afterwards re-
turned to the messenger. Early in 1856
Philson learned 10y accident that Corcor-
an. who had removed to the State OF
Michigan. had been dead for eleven
months past, and shortly thereafter he
presented the policy ofinsurance for pay
ment. Much to his surprise he learned
that the widow. Mrs. Corcoran, had al
ready secured the value of the policy, but
not until she had made some kind OF
proof that the policy had been either lost
or destroyed and had given the company
a bond of indemnity. Philson according
ly entered suit against the insurance
company for the amount of his claim,
s3,O1L0i, with interest from 1884. The
makers of the policy being a mutual COM
pany, and the insured in this case, being
in reality partner in the company's
business, i; was clearly Lis duty 10 notify
the general Office Of the company IN New
York that the policy had been assigned
20 the use of Dill, and later by Dill 10 the
use of Philson, and duplicate copy OF
the assignments should have heen filed
in the New York Office, IS required by
tie conditions of the policy. Messrs.
Eooser Il Kooser, who represented Phil
son, set up the theary that the insurance
company had waived this condition OF
the policy when it directed Philson to
communicate with them through their
Philadelphia Office. The case was SUBJ
mitted to the jury on this with, many
other propositions of law, with the result
that Philson was given verdict for the
full amount of his claim. The insurance
company was represented in court by ex-
Judge Baer.
II is not improbable that prosecutions
will grow out OF this case.
Judge Greer, who is holding court this
IL L.