Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-06-18
THE FINAL ARBlTER.
DECISIONS HANDED DOWN IN THE
SUPREME COURT.
DOZEN INTERESTING CASES.
Half of the Number Are from NOR
folk and Northumberland IN
voIving Fraud, Riparian Rights,
md Insurance Policies.

| The Supreme Court of Appeals. which
| convened at Wythevile on the 9th in
slant. is evidently doing a great deal OF
| work, twelve opinions. some OF them quite
| lengthy. having been handed down last
| Thursday.
The cases are quite varied in character
and some of them are about as interesting
! to the layman as TO the lawyer. 1t Is
| somewhat remarkable that one-half Of the
opinions refer to cases in Norfolk ana
Portsmouth.
Important Insurance Case.
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 Norfolk.
The case is really a sequel to Mutual Lie
Insurance Company VS. Oliver, 20 Va, 4io.
1t seems that on September p. 1884,
Charles Oliver, of Norfolk. applied TO the
Mutual Life-Insurance Company through
its soliciting agent. NJ s. Stringfeilow'
for two policies Of insurance-one for
50, 900 in favor Of his wife, Ida j.. OIVer'
and one for 5000 for the benefit of his
sister, Kate Oliver. The applications went
to the southern office in Baltimore,
thence to the Norfolk Office to be deliver
ed having been acted upon favorably.
While the Norfolk agent was away from
his office for the purpose Of delivering the
policies telegram came to the office
from the home Office, instructing him not
to deliver the policies but to hold tor fur
Their instructions. The policies were kept
at The Norfolk Office until october lSth'
On october 10th the applicant was shot
while hunting.
QUESTION OF DRINKING.
The opinion states that Oliver had
when making application for insurance
stated that he was only moderate
drinker. but that after the policies had
been approved and sent back TO the Nor
folk office to be delivered, me company
received two reports. showing that the
applicant was more than moderate
drinker. This was the motive which lea
the home office to order the policies 10 be
held after they were returned TO Nortolk
approved.
1t appears that the soliciting agent told
Oliver that "if his application was ac-
cepted he would deliver the policies TO
him" and receive the premiums thereon
II was contended that the effect OF TINS
promise made by the cOmpanys agent.
was to bind the company to deliver toe
policies when issued; and Ida L. Oliver,
widow Of the applicant, brought suit for
the 5000 of her policy upon the ground
that the soliciting agent, by his agree
ment to deliver the policy when issued,
had bound his company TO do 50, though
he could not make a verbal contract Of
insurance.
The lower court decided that the plain
tiff was not entitled to recover Inc
Court of Appeals affirms the decision. The
court is Of opinion that there was nothing
10 show that the company had not act
ed I'm good faith when insructing its
agent TO hold the policies. or that 1t de-
layed in investigating reports that ma
terial statement made by Oliver in his
application was untrue There was an
express agreement IN divers application
that the policies should net 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 aiifm-
"a. The oninion in the case is written by
Judge ca ID.
City's T ability to Garnishment.
The cas-. of the Portsmouth Gas Com
pany vs. Sanford Brooks 81 Bonsal. is an
interesting one, involving the liability OF
a city to garnishment proceedings.
The plaintiff in error brought an action
on the case against the defendant in