Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-02
THE BELLS VICTORY.
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PACED

AGAINST the National Fire-Insurance SoiIi-
pany. of Baltimore, the judgment Vi .de
rourt below IS reversed ana the case IL
manded for new trlal - rs.,t,,+a
DR.. Glover conducted heeIsy tns . fro,,,
sn Ashland in a house purchassu AI ir,
g. II. Jackson & Co, of CAIRO, III ne
rrouerty had been insured AT tline WIFI
il was occupied by Mrs, BALDWIN, WIZ
kept clearinghouse. IL was uS Hs e.
nv FIRE during the occupancy OF III. D,o-
yer. and the company refused 10 pay tne
amount OF the policy NS,5Ov) on t ile
ground that the house was uscu III III
reception Of patients IN a Mercy f rre,9inm
charged for dwelling-houses was consl1e-
rably less than for such establishments
which are rated as hospitals. -. l.,
The action was orlsihaNy y,tv Dio OF Rich-
mond. and removed by the deIenuaiii.
company to the United states Circult
Court. where a verdict was rendered lOt
The defendant 'sunder the instructions, o,
the court" certain testimony being ruler
out on the ground that all conyeIssttio,ns
between the parties were merged l my lne
written contract, and that paiol eVlueI0e
was inadmissible to show that the III
tent and meaning Of the parties was az
ferent from what the words or the c on-
tract expressed, and authorities Vi oo IN
manding weight are cited TO supportt trs
proposition that when policy contains
plain language which has a settied legai
construction, neither party can by paIol
avidence be permitted to prove that lhe
instrument does not mean what II seys..
n is claimed that the agents or lhe
xourany knew at the time the pohcy was
written that the premlyes were veitis ~
cupied as n Keeiey-cCfe esta pllslIliie ~.
and the court holds that In deteInliins
that question the jury were entltie9 10
cons;der the conversations alleged 10
have been had with the agents az thS
time the insurance was eiiecteei anu NE, 81
the circumstances surrounding the tia 10
al
oyonts ~ the parties and the conduct OF
the agents Immediately AFTER the hre'
OTHER DECISIONS RENDERED.
o,har oninions handed down were:
No OBJ ID. G.. Sayers. George w. Har-
mon et al appellants, VS.. Nllham H.
Burkhardt, ct al, appellees. Appear IfoIn
Circuit Court OF west NHslita' a.
Charleston. Opinion by Judge Non' a.
No. 2ss. Elk parte Samuel w. Vance, pc
4,tioner plaintihf in error VS.. Edward Is.
Wesley, respondent, Defendant IN Error
In error to the Circuit Court OF South
Carolina. at Charleston. In re 11ndal ct
al VS.. Il. q. Wesley. Opinion by Judge
Goff. Affirmed.
No. 2A The Charlotte on ana Ferullzer
Company. plaintiff in error, VS.. Hartog
and Fesel defendants in error. In error
To the Circuit Court, Western District OF
North Carolina, at Charlotte. Opinion by
Judge Brawley Affirmed.
No. 81. (ItOfEc >. Dl2Sto CT ais, oRPNh-
lants VS. c. Richard Taylor. appellee.
Appeal from the District Court, Eastern
District Of Virginia, at Norfolk Opinion
by Judge Purnell. Affirmed.
No. 2io. =. G. Growther. joseph Nc
appellants, vs.. the Fidelity Insurance,
Trust and Safe Deposit Company, trus-
tee. ct al, appelees. Appeal from Circuit
Court, Western District Of Virginia. at
Harrisonburg. Opinion by Judge Simon
ton. Affirmed.
No. 2lS. W. Vance Brown, Potter M.
Brown et al, appellants, VS.. Cranberry
Iron and Coal Company, appellee Appeal
from Circuit Court, Western District OF
North Carolina, at Asheville. Opinion by
Judge Brawley. Affirmed.
No 217, Township of Ninety-six, county
OF Abbeville, State of South Carolina,
plaintiff in error, VS.. George w. Folsom
defendant in error. in error to the CIR
cult Court of South Carolina, was argued
by George NJ Trenholm, of Charleston
s. C., for plaintiff in error, and by John
X Shields, Of Morristown, Tenn, and H.
w. Parker, Of Greenville. S. c., for de-
PENDANT in error, and case submitted.