Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-04-03
An.lmportant Case.

An important insurance case was on
trial in the United States circuit court
at Portland Thursday, before Judge
Webb, This is an action brought by the
Wild River Lumber Company against
the Travellers Insurance Company upon
a policy of insurance issued py the de-
PENDANT company to the plaintiff against
iahilitv for damages resulting from per-
sonaJ Injuries to either their employees or
70 other persons for which the plaintiff
might be liable. not exceeding 5000 to
any one person or $4,000 in any one acct
dent.
Hastings. three and one-half miles from
CiJead on the Grand Trunk road, and
is engaged in extensive numbering opera
lions It is claimed that no highway ex-
lists between Hastings and Gilead, the
only means of communication being
railroad built and maintained by the
plaintiff for it's operations.
ON November TO- 1894, Walter A. Nc
Donald and Myron NJ. Fairbrother, two
travelling statesmen for a Portland nrm,
visited Hastings for the purpose OF sell
ing goods to the plaintiff. TINS company
having a store at that place for the sup
nly of goods to their employees and for
their own uses. Having transacted their
business at Hastings. Mcdonald ana
Fairbrother arranged with the agent of
the company to send them to Gllead by
special train it being too late for the
regular "trip to the station to connect
with the afternoon train for Portland.
The locomotive had been engaged that
morning in shifting cars and the train
men had used in that business heavy
chain some 20 feet in length. Upon re-
ceiving the order to run TO Gilead they
threw the chain upon the front OF the
locomotive without securing it and pro-
ceeued out upon the line Fairbrother
Mcdonald the conductor, engineer and
fireman We're in the cab of the engine,
no car being attached. About mile and
a quarter from Hastings the chain in
some way became disodged, presumably
by the motion of the engine and fell un-
der the driving wheels and threw the To-
connective over the embankment. serl-
ously injuring both Mcdonald and Fair
brother The former sustained broken
arm and some other injuries While the
latter was very severely burned by the
escaping steam from a broken pipe. The
train men escaped without serious in
jury. ..
The Travellers Insurance Company
was notified of the accident and We're
informed that claim for damages
might arise in which case the lumber
company would claim protection under
its policy of insurance. but the insurance
company denied it's liability under the
terms of the policy. Suits were brought
in the supreme court by Fairbrother
and Mcdonald against the lumber COM
pany for damages for personal injuries
and both case We're referred. The ref
erees heard the cases and rendered de-
cisions awarding $4,000 damages to Nc
Donald and $500 damages to Fan. oroth-
err which awards the lumber company
paid.
In the spring of 1895 the lumber COM
pany brought this action against the in
Surance company to recover the full sun,
of $1,000 paid to Mcdonald and $500 of the
sum paid to Fairbrother. not claiming to
hold the insurance company in the case of
the latter for the excess over $3tu0 stated
in the policy. The case was removed to
the United States circuit court and en-
tered there at the September term of
that year 1t now came up before Judge
Webb a trial by jury being waived and
the right of exception reserved.
The defense contends that the appli-
cation and policy formed the contract
of the insurance and that under the
statements contained in the application
and the terms of the policy based upon
the same, it is only liable for such dam
ages as might be sustained by the en-
ployes of the company while engaged in
the company's numbering operations
and that it did not include the hazard
of public passenger transportation. Inc
plaintiff on the other hand contends that
the application itself formed no part OF
the contract of insurance stated in the
policy as even if it were part of the
policy Mcdonald and Fairbrother were
at Hastings upon matters touching the
business of the company. and that the
application contemplated and that the
policy covered such risks.
The hearing occupied the entire day
and was adjourned to Thursday of next
week to enable the parties to procure
certain evidence not accessible at this
time.