Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-04-07

ped in time 10 save MIN. Inc man ndt
his back to the approaching train; th'
cotton-mills were making a great noise
the water was roaring over the dam, h'
was probably I'm deep thought. He die
not hear Mrs. Irby's cry right at his ear
he did not hear or heed the blast of tn
whistle. Therefore, the opinion concludes
1--WE are of opinion that the negligence
of plaintiffs interstate contributing ID
his injury must not only be inferred from
all the circumstances of the case, but
| such negligence Is apparent from the
plaintiffs evidence: therefore, the 1udg-
ment Of the Corporation Court of the city
Of Danville must be- reversed and annui-
led. the verdict Of the jury set aside,
and the cause remanded 10 that court
for a new trial. TO be had i'm accordance
with this opinion"
what is an Insurable Interest.
The case Of Tate VS.. the Commercial
Building Association ct ais. from the Ctl-
cult Court OF the city OF LynchOurg' -
an interesting one. involving the right 10
have ones life insured TO secure a 2
and the right to assign a policy as COLA
teral.
In the wear 1891 the Commercial Build
ing Association OF L%ynchburg borrowed
$4,000 from the Maryland Life-Insurance
COMPANY. Tho insurance company re-
ouired that the association execute its
bond for the amount OF the loan, and tnat
the instrument be signed by all the
stockholders as sureties; that the ASSOC
citation give a deed of trust on ninety
four of it's lots, and as further security
insure the lives Of three Of its youngest
members for the sum Of 10000. The assoc
citation entered into a verbal agreement
with W. II. Wrenn, y. T.. Hughes, ana ).
-. Tate, the appellant, that they TAKE
out the policies in the Maryland com
pany for the benefit of the association
the association agreeing 10 pay the pre-
mlums.
The men took out the policies, but did
so for their own benefit, and not for the
associations. They then assigned the
polIcies TO the insurance company as ad-
ditional collateral security for the asso-
cations debt. This variation from thS
agreement did not become known 10 inc
association or the members untll ait,'
the death OF Wrenn, when Tate, as Ms
assignee. claimed TO be- entitled 10 w
proceeds Of the policy subject 10 /"
rights of the insurance company "Hue'
the prior assignment. The insurance I'm
many maid the policy by applying the pro
paaJs 40 the debt OF the association. Tate
sued "a recover from the association the
amount OF the policy. less the lndeDteu-
ness of Wrenn to IL for premiums IL mao
Maid He sued on the ground the pfoceeuS
of the policy had been applied 10 the dept
the association owed the Insurance coih-
pany. He also sued to recover the amount
of contributions by Tate TO pay MS pro-
portionate part or assessments mace oy
The association against its members 10
meet the premiums on the pollcies anu
interest on the debt 10 the insurance
Tate refused TO pay his assess
ments after the death Of Wrenn.
When the agreement was made with
Wrenn TO nave his life insured he was
not indebted TO the association, and ala
not thereafter become indebted to II, ex-
cept for the premiums paid by II on ms
policy. The opinion holds the association
had no insurable interest In Wrenn's HE.
Judge Rely. in q very lucid manner,
discusses the questions involved, ana
goes into the law Of insurance 80 far as
necessary 10 learn what constitutes an
insuroble interest. lie says that had the
agreement been complied with by Wrenn. |
and the policy taken out for the beneht
Of the association, the policy would have
been invalid. The association certainly |
not have recovered upon the policy !
than the premiums paid. II al all. |
An assignee OF a policy can only so much
OF the proceeds as Is necessary 10
reimburse him for premiums paid and In
terest thereon. The association would |
have been liable to Wrenn's estate for
the proceeds Of the policy. Tate. as
assignee, has all the latter's |
rights as against the association. The
agreement regarding the insurance was
to public policy. but was not In
trinsically immoral.
On April 16, 1886, the association con-
fessed judgment in the Circuit Court OF
L%ynchburg In favor OF the Commercial
OF that city for s734.4. The Su-
preme Court holds that this comes within
he p~uryiew Of section ll49 OF the Code, !
so that all the creditors OF the associa-
ton must share ratabiy I'm the proceeds
Of the lien.
The decree OF the lower court Is re-
versed and a new trial ordered.
An Improvident Appeal.
The court dismisses as having been i'm
proyidently awarded the appeal OF the
and Western Railroad Company
VIZ. the Old Dominion Baggage Company, |
Lynchburg. |
The appeal was from a decree overriding
a demurrer 10 the bill. In which the court
states it's reasons therefor. giving the de-
PENDANTS leave To hle answers within sixty
from the adjournment OF court; pro-
viding tina II no answer be filed the In
perpetuated. and that the defendants
should pay TO the complainants their
costs up 10 that time expended.
IL further provided that IL no answer
filed within sixty days. or II the court
A--- xRAnAs .AnlI AT III FAX y