The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-03-16

pealed from the Law and Equity Court
of the city Of Richmond.
This - the second time this case has
been before this court Upon the former
writ of error Judgment was reversed.
and case remanded, with leave to plain
tiff in error to. amend her declaration.
Judgment was obtained against the de-
PENDANT at the new trial, from which
this writ OF error was awarded. Upon the
trial the PLAINTIFF offered In evidence the
two policies OF insurance sued on, the
application therefor, proofs of the deaths
of the insured, and certain oral evidence.
The defendant, without introducing any
testimony demurred to the plaintiffs
evidence, which demurrer was overruled
and Judgment entered. By the terms OF
the policies of insurance. the answers to
the statements contained In the printed
and written application for them were
all made warranties and parts of the
contracts of insurance. One OF these
provides that II any of the statements or
warranties referred to in the policies,
upon which they We're granted. was not
true. the policies should be void.
One of the questions required was. II
the parents of the accused were living Or
dead and if dead. the cause of death.
z To this the insured answered that his
father was dead, and that the cause OF
his death was cholera morbus.
In the blanks furnished by the company
for proofs of death the plaintiff. the bene-
ticiary In the policies. was asked 10 state
the cause Of the death of the father of
the Insured, and she answered ".stula
The company insisted that this answer
showed the statement OF the insured In
his application was untrue as to this
fact. and that there was. therefore,
breach OF warranty which rendered the
policies void
In reviewing the case this court said:
1.-THE proofs of loss show that the deaths
OF the father Of the insured was eausea
nv n disease other than that stated m
the application for insurance. thus snow
ing prina facie the faisity or one OF sne
answers of the insured, which lie nao
warranted to be true. No effort WIS
! made 10 show that this statement In the
proof OF the loss was the result of MS
take or was not true. although the plain
tiff herself the party who made ire
statement. testified in the case. In tins
condition of the record. the fIlsity OF TIE
answer OF the Insured as TO the cause or
his father death must be treated us es-
tablishcd It may be. as the pehenciiis,t
| insists. that this answer was NOT reaf
rnsterial TO the risk assumed by the COM
pany, but this does not arect tne dues
ton
"This Judgment OF the trial court is re-
versed and set aside. ard this ceurt Will
enter such Judgment as 1t should nave
entered.
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF FRAUD
Fischer VS.. Lee ct ais Opinion by .udss
Riley. Appealed from Cnancery court
OF the city OF Richmond.
This was an &C tiontto recover the value
of rhe pianos sold by Fischer to Fl. 3.
! Lee, Upon the express and Implied rep
resenta tons by Lee that they We're needed
by him for sale Tn the resGsiis.r course OF
hts business, of which he claimed 10 Dc
experiencing q strong revival. ana siitisa'5
vorsd BY urgent kilograms and letters TO
hasten their shipment to supply sales
and meet demands for pianos, out winch
p,omp,ly after their arrival In Richmond
lee .u,rdged for loans to Crawford es
Co and To Young Jones at GSorfous
rates OF interest, removing many OF them
Immediately on tneir arrival as iiS
from the depot to storage W asetn,tss g,
where pledges for them Were th 1ssls.sa
. created. q,
fron, the evidersce that the pianos We're
obtained by Lee from Fischer upon Itsse
! srerresen &, lions. IL the CONTROVERSY were
! alone between arpelee and the appet-Si
liant the transaction could not possibly
be upheld - ~
yf,ln.s Tones deny ali knowledge OF
| anu fraud nraeticed by Lee In purchasing;
the ssdanos from the appellant, or OF any
| fraudu1enr design in pledsinS the same
IN rhenn TO loans Of money. me c0url
,h..,i tt1tl these PARTIES, being piedgees.
/ for yal,re.5 without notice. were entitled
no The same protection as other bona tidei
,nnrstsa serr and that the evidence failed
to sfrect the PLEDGES with such knowt-s
eslge Of the. REAL facts as t 20 Constitute
snficient notice TO se tsbrge hem, and
that the lnw OF Mons truc ntye notice cd
NOT sinns,ose mon the pIedgees or p.ay-
B chnsers such sEat itulinoua inesatr ~ thes
O., Atnuaas % Fourth Psss