The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-06-05
HOLDS THE POLICY VALID
CISION IN FOREST LAKE IN
SURANCE CASE
JURYs RIGHT TO WEIGH LIBEL
Insisted Upon in Hennepin County
Case, In Which the Lower
Court Is Also Re
Versed.

Justice Lovely, of the supreme court
yesterday filed a decision reversing the
order OF the Ramsey county district court
In the case of the Hamm Realty Com
pany, appellant VS.. The New Hampshire
Fire Insurance Company, respondent and
rules on a number of important points
which have interested insurance men.
The dispute arose over the payment of
insurance on a house at Forest Lake
which had been insured with the j. O.
Haas agency for s., 1O0 on which half was
in the Sun of New York, and the other
half in the German. of Freeport.
The German ordered its policy Cancelled
and Haas instructed his clerks to replace
Fl with one in the New Hampshire, but be-
fore the latter policy had been delivered
the house burned. The New Hampshire
denied liability. It's policy had been
made out complete, except that 1t had not
been signed by Haas as local agent 1t
had not been accepted by Hamm, and the
question was raised as to whether Haas
could act in this manner for both the
company and the assured.
The supreme court holds that he could.
The syllabus IS as follows:
Hamm Realty Company, appellant, VS..
New hampshire Fire Insurance Com
pary, respondent.
SylIabus-I. A general insurance agen-
cy representing several companies with
authority TO act upon applications and is
sue policies, as well as to cancel the same
III proper cases, may also act as the
agent Of the insured in waving notice
of cancellation and in accepting a deliv-
cry of a new policy when substituted for
the one cance.ed.
,. Such agency Of the insured may be
established by a long course of conduct
and uninterrupted custom without ex-
press authority being conferred either
in writing CT by parol.
3. Held there was evidence In this
tending to show that the agent of de-
PENDANT, and another insurance COM
pany, whose policy issued upon plaintiffs
property had been Cancelled, was author
lied to waive notice of cancellation and
accept delivery of new and substituted
policy.
4. That the trial court should have
made findings of law and fact in this
case in order to have disposed of the
issues involved, and that an order dis
where there IS no evidence sustaining the
contention Of the party against whom
1t was made. Order reversed.
Lovely, J.
Don A. Cameron's judgment against the
Duluth street railway, one of whose cars
struck hook and ladder truck, is af-
hrmed. The court says:
Don A. Cameron, respondent, VS.. Luther
5Mendenhai, as receiver of the Duluth
street Railway Company, appellant
Syllabus. This case is Identical in it's
facts to Warren VS. Mendenhall. 70 North
west reports, Col, and upon the questions
settled in that case, the order of the trial
court is affirmed.
2. Minor assignments of error consid-
cred and held to be wholly without merit.
Order affirmed Lovely 7
The general rule to permit the Jury to
consider the weight of a libel is insisted
upon in the reversal of decision by the
Hennepin court The syIlabi of the other
decisions are as follows:
Leonard II. Nord. appellant, VS.. Charles
/. Gray, respondent.
Syliabus-L Certain words sDol5en of
plaintiff. considered and neid to minute
criminal misconduct against HIM although
no specific crime was in words directly
chargcd-yet the effect of the utterance
OF the alleged SANDER was such that or
binary men would understand the lam
Euage as imDuting an unlawful conspiracy
to defraud.
2. When The question If privilege in
speaking verbs affecting another is claim
cd there must be an obligation of duty
TO speak the words as we'll as the good
latin Of the party utdering the same the
question of privilege is usually. and in
lhlS case was clearly for the jury and
could not have been determined By the
court
Order reversed and case remanded for
further proceedings.
Lovely. J.
n. Baldiager, respondent VS. Rockford
insurance Company of Illinois. appel
liant.
syllabus--A service of summons and
company is sufficient to confer juEisdic-
ton If made upon a LEGAL agent of such
company under section 3f5S General Stat
uteS 1874, which has not been repealed by
section 4. CHAPTER 175, General Laws Of
1873. Judgment affirmed.