Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1897-07-29
LEGAL NEWS.
Butler Fair-Sept :, s. o and 10Th.
SUPERIOR COURT DECISIONS.

The Superior Court sitting at Phila-
| delphia made a number of decisions
last week. and among them ones on
Butler county cases, as follows:
Judge Beaver affirmed the lower
court in the case of Ferguson and wife
| against Moore ct al. The case involved
| the question as TO whether or not prop
| erty belonging to the wife can be levied
upon for taxes owed by the husband.
Mrs. Ferguson owned a COW, upon
| which the tax collector of Clinton
| township levied. She recovered the
value of the COW in snit for damages
In the case of the Capital City Mutu-
al Fire Insurance Co. VS. II. c. Boggs
Judge Willard wrote the opinion
In this case Boggs secured a judg
ment against the company in the lower
court, the trial judge stating that the
| appellee never was a member of the
company because he was induced to en-
| ter into the contract by the false and
| fraudulent representations of its agent,
s. S Woods.
Boggs had testified that the agent
had represented TO him that the com
pany was good one and that the as
sessments would not exceed SIS per
year He understood that when he
paid $50 down on the application that
the policy would require no more
money for the first year. The appel
lees application, however, agreed that
he would pay the company such money
as the board of directors of the com
pany might assess, and if any such as
sessment was not paid to the company
at its office in Harrisburg or to a duly
authorized agent after thirty days after
notice of the same, he would pay 25 per
cent. thereon for expenses of collection
The trial judge under the head OF
findings of facts, stated that the defen-
dant was induced by Woods to sign the
application and accept the policy by
Woods falsely and fraudulently repre-
senting to him that the assessments
could not exceed 80 cents on the 800
for any one year; that there could be
no other assessments until the expira
ton of the year; that he paid $50 as
his proportion of any loss that might
occur during that year. The finding or
facts is not supported by the testimony.
The Court says: The witness denied
that anything was said about a 9O-cent
assessment per 800 He said that he
considered the company financially
good, but there is no evidence that it
was IOl SOOu DIT lIldt tlulS HOI 10 lHcit
evidence that he said that the company
was a frst-class one. What he said
about future assessments was but opin
ion and the appellee could not have been
misled thereby.
He knew by the terms of his agree
ment that he was liable to pay such as
sessments as the directors should make
and that he was liable to % per cent.
penalty for non payment Further than
that he received and retained the policy
with the application printed upon it
and if he found that he had been de-
frauded it was his duty to repudiate
the transaction promptly upon examin
alton. This he never did and we ean
not agree with the learned judge that
the non payment of assessments was a
RECESSION OF contract.
sIf obligations can be successfully
repudiated and set aside by the non
payment on demand, an easy way of
payment and of discharge from liabili
ty is thereby afforded. The judgment
is reversed and procedendo is award
ed