The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-11-06

for the policy from the policy holder
knowing that he had no insurance, in
duced him to trust to a worthless pol
Icy and lead him to believe he had IN
surance when the company knew he
had none, 1t was stopped by such
fraud and must pay the loss, If the
property burned, and one of the main
objects Of the companies in getting this
law through the legislature was to get
around the decisions of the courts, in
order that they might be protected In
their fraudulent practice.
Matt Anderson held a policy Of in
surance on his house. which burned
and he wcs compelled to sue the Com
pany for the insurance money. 1t ap-
peared that, on account of one of these
cut-throat clauses, the policy was void
when it was issued, and the company
took the premium money, knowing
that fact. The supreme court, on ap-
penl, held that, by virtue of this in
surance law, the company had a right
to take Anderson's money and give
him no insurance for It, but Judge
CAVITY vigorously dissented from the
! majority opinion, and claimed that the
statute was unconstitutional and void
because the legislature had no right to
delegate to the Insurance commission
er the authority to make a standard
policy. After the case had been decid-
ed in the, supreme court and the other
| judges had taken a couple OF months
to reflect upon the matter, rehearing
was ordered on the point raised by
| Judge CAVITY. By this time the dis
senting opinion had been published in
| the advance sheets sent out by the law
| publishers to the lawyers, and Judge
Canty's dissenting opinion was read
| by firm of Philadelphia lawyers, who
happened to have the same kind Of
case In the supreme court OF PennSyl-
| vania. They raised the same point in
| that court, and cited Judge Canty's
| dissenting opinion, and the supreme
court of Pennsylvania agreed with
Judge Canty and held their standard
| policy law unconstitutional few
months later the Anderson case came
up second time, and all of the MIN
| neSota judges came around to Cantv,s
views, and the Infamous Minnesota
| law was knocked out. Anderson won
the case. About six months later the
| supreme court of Wisconsin knocked
out their standard policy law. Judge
Canty's dissenting opinion has saved
millions of dollars to property owners
! of the country.
must not omit to state that Judge
| Canty has written many able opinions
In which the whole court has concur
| red with him. The Minnesota legisla-
ture had passed a law requiring all
regular passenger trains to stop at all
| county seats. The roads refused to
| obey the law and claimed that it was
contrary to the United States constf-
tuition. The court held the railway
| company must obey the law, and. on
appeal to the United States supreme
court. it was affirmed
| The Great Northern railroad crosses
the line of the Minneapolis & st. Louis
at Hanley Falls. in this state, but
| lhere was no connecting switch or
] at that point. The farmers and
shippers along both roads wanted the
| roads to transfer cars from one rosad
| to- the other at this crossing. The
supreme court, Judge Canty writing
! the opinion, decided that the state rail-
| way commission had the power 10
compel the railways to put in the
switch so that cars might be transfer
RED from one road to the other.
| Perhaps the greatest decision that
vas ever written in this country is
| the STEVENSON case, familiar to every
farmer and shipper in the Northwest.
In this case Judge Canty threw very
much new light on the great railroad
problem of today, viz: By what rule
shall we determine what are reasona-
BILE rates for carrying freight and pas
| sengers on railroads? Not only did he
| lay down some important new rules.
| put he took up for consideration the
entire system Of railroads Of the Great
Northern with all it's branch corpora
tons and side enterprises, and its
my wheels within wheels by which
II managed - eomplicate It's business
and conceal Its vast income The
Judge laid all these matters bare ana