The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-14

y 4 4ze +
information relative to his previous losses By
specific inquiry from the defendant That silence this
subject under such perfectly consistent with
honesty Of purpose intention And that the plaintiff being
obligation disclose such facts proof that ne failed
disclose them would be mmaterial to issue the ease
This position is well supported by authority
The Supreme Court of the United States sad: but when
representations asked and h only this gen
eral knowledge the chooses the risk he must
in point law be deemed do it at his peril Clark Mig
ms Co., S How. 3d.
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts "Ihe defendant
saw this policy without any specific inquiries ct the
plaintiff the title the land and without
by the plaintiff upon this point Twas its own careless
avoid the policy without proving
misrepresentation eonceament the part OF the plaintiff
An failure facts about which tbs plain
tiff asked will have this effect Washington Nuts
Mfq. co. y. Weymouth ms. Co., 135 Mass 505
The Supreme Court Of New York SAID on the subject
provision the policy that omission to- make known
any fact the risk should render it void the abb
proof fraud violated because the insured
failed disclose facts regard to which no inquiry made
The applicant has right to suppose insurer making
inquiries particular facts considers all others to be nia
era or that knew valves information
gard to them' Bro,oning Home ms Co., q n x 512
Other authorities are Gates Madison Co. Ma ms Co..
n Y Ats; Fo,ce Springfield ms Co, 122 Mass. 49,
Walsh D. Philadelphia Fire Association 12z Mass sS9; Van
kirk Citizens ms Co 9W) 4s n W.7as; agtnaf o.
Tennessee Marine and Fire ms Co., IS Mo- 262; WyheotAe
ms and Bkg. Co. rStu {ya 13 S. i. u Joyce on ms
Sec. 643.
The case of Protective ms Co. Hoaner, Oh ST. Az,
cited in the opinion file (ante p y referred to prn
cpay authority for overrung exception 81 The rea
question presented exception 81 The facts the Ohio
different from those In the at bar There the
property insured had been fire short time before the risk
was and the believed the OF the tire to be
ncendiarv Proof of the failure disclose these facts
nantv admitted without objection and the said that the
ateraty of the facts properly submitted to the jury and
that competent pass upon their maeraty as any
insurance expert.
follows that exception SO properly oyerruled and that
the motion for ehearng be denied 1t ordered
A. s. Humphreys and j. r.. De Bolt for plaintiff
Kinney Bdllou HcClanahdn for defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII
SEPTEMBER TERM 1900
JOHN BELL .. PALEA.
EXCEPTIONS FROM C1RcUrr CoURT, FIRST CIRCUIT.
SUBMITTED OoroBER q 1900 DECIDED JANUARY "a, 1901
FREAR Co. GA1BRA1rH Perry, j.
require the plaintiff to prove
OPINION FREAR, CT
This case was begun in the District Koolaupoko
Island of Oahu by defendants appeal jury waived
to the Circuit june 1899. 1t placed on the
the August Term, 1899, but owing to the large
number preceded reached until the
August Term 1900 when the jury waived taken up
/
On the 9Th of August 1900 at P NJ the set for
the It'll at About other that preceded 1t were
for the day. At about il on the tt OF ABOUT
before the the called and counsel
for the plaintiff asked he ready to proceed lie re-
piled that he not ready he had not supposed the case
tno uru