Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-06-18
THREE NORFOLK CASES
Decision OF tho Law ana Chnnccry
rourt of Norfolk Affirmed In shc
Oliver In~urnnce Case Judge Mar
din Reyer.ed IN Cnso OF the Ameri
can Nclnud Iwino 10. VS.. Mayo,
but there Is N Dissenting opinion.
lspecial to Virginian-Pllot.

Nencd
slant, is evidently doing a great deal
of work, twelve opinions, some of them
quite lengthy, being handed down last
Thursday.
The cases are quite varied in charac-
ter and some of them are about as IN
teresting to the layman as 10 the law
Ners. 1t is somewhat remarkable that
one-half of the opinions refer TO cases
in Norfolk ana Portsmouth.
one OF the most interesting cases de-
cided is that of oliver VS.. Mutual Life
Insurance Company of New York. from
the Law and Chancery Court of Nor
folk. The case is really n sequel to Mu-
tual Life Insurance Company VS.. Oliver.
30 No.. 445.
1t seems that on September %. 1891.
Charles oliver, of Norfolk, applied to
the mutual Life Insurance Company.
through it's soliciting agent, u ,.
SrinL elbow, for lwo policies OF insur-
ance. one Tor 5000 in iaVor ol MS W.ie'
Ida Il. UilVer, ana one Tor S2.uUJ Tor tiie
hnnent OF ms sister, Natc OliHer. Inc
Application went 10 the southern ONCE
in l3alIlmore thence to the nome Office,
in New York, thence 20 the Norfolk OF
flee, 10 he delivered, having peeh acted
upon iaNoraDly.
\, -
from his onicc for the purpose OF del.v-
cr.nt; The policies, Il telegram came 10
The Office from the home office instruct
Ing him not to deliver the pohc1es' put
to hold them for r,her Instructions.
The policies were kept ut the Norfolk
Office until October 10TH ON OCTOBER
10th the apWi cant was shot While huht-
ing.
The opinion states that Oliver had
when making application Tor insurance,
m n
drinker. but that after the policies had
been approved, and sent back TO the
Norfolk office to be delivered the com
pany received two reports showing that
the applicant was more than mode
rate drinker. This was the motive
which led the home Office to order the
policies TO be held after they were re-
turned to Norfolk approved.
1t appears that the soliciting agent
told Oliver that III his application was
accepted he would deliver the policies
to him" and receive the premiums
thereon 1t was contended that the eff
feet of this promise. made by the COM
pany's agent, was to bind the company
to deliver the policies when issued, and
Ida i. Oliver, widow of the applicant.
brought suit for the $4,000 OF her pol
icy upon the ground that the soliciting
agent, by his agreement to deliver the
policy when issued had bound his COM
pany to do so. though he could not
make verbal contract of Insurance.
The lower court decided that the
plaintiff was not entitled to recover
The Court of Appeals afirms the de-
cison. The court is of opinion that
there was nothing TO show that the
+ company had not acted in good faith
when instructing its agent to hold the
policies or that il delayed investigating
reports that a material statement made
by oliver in his application was I'M
true. There was an express agree
ment in divers application that the
policies should not take effect until the
first premium had been paid. This had
not been paid at the time of divers
death.
The decision OF the lower court is at
firmed
ANOTHER NORFOLK CASE.
The American Net and Irvine Com
pany V. .,Iayo and others, from the Law
and Chancery Court of Norfolk, was
decided by a divided court, Harrison
and Buchanan. ]. j.. dissenting. The
case was an appeal from Il decree of
the Norfolk court Diminishing the bill of
the appellant against Il. Mayo, his wife
and John j. Mayo. their son, the pur-
pose of which was to set aside two
deeds executed by Is. Mayo and wife
to John j. Mayo. whereby the latter
acquired all the real estate his father
possessed. The bill alleged the deeds
were not upon valuable consideration.
but were made TO prevent the twine
company from making Il debt due ii
from Mayo. and while a suit for the
same was pending in the Norfolk
courts. The answer of John ]. Mayo
denies generally and asserts that the
deeds were upon consideration valuable
in law. If there was intent to defraud
the defendant AYERS he was not Drivy
to 1t. He claims to have paid his
father. in various ways, $4,000 for the
property.
The court goes into all the facts.
which are very voluminous and CON
cludes by setting aside the deeds as
fraudulent. and remanding the cause
to the lower court for such further
proceedings as may be necessary.
Judge Cardwell wrote the opinion.
Judge Harrison wrote a strong dissent
Ing opinion.
TODD VS.. SYKES.
Todd vs.. Sykes is also from the Law
and Chancery Court of Norfolk, and
the opinion was also written by Judge
Cardwell The case Is an appeal from
decree setting aside. as fraudulent
and void, eight deeds made by Lucinda
rod, conveying to her son, Charles ii.
Todd lot on Chapel Lane. in Nor
folk, In consideration of 81 200 lots Nos
rs, rs. "a. Gl. CO, and 67 on Avenue +,
in Huntersville, Norfolk county, for ST.
800, the total consideration named in
the deeds being $1,000 Five deeds dated
July 16, 1895, convey property for an
aggregate consideration of $3.50
4 The deeds were attacked by Josephine
4 Sykes daughter Of Lucinda Todd, and
half q sister OF Charles Todd. who
& charged fraud and undue influence
Todd said he originally bought the lots
& with his own money. but transferred