The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1903-02-14

Aebbville, I'd Di5trict.-The letter signed
IT, in the last weeks issue of The UNION re-
gardlng the Chesapeake and Potomac Tele-
. phone Company's proposed line from Pixies
vile to Hebbville, in which the aforesaid
writer advocates the running of same line
through to Powhatan, has very little SEM
Dlance of progressiveness as ''T' styles it and
the same spirit which prompts property-owners
IN Baltimore city to object to the planting of
the unsightly poles directly in front Of their
houses, prevails among property-own on
the proposed line from Pikesvilleto Hebbville.
Those gentlemen who have been named as
subscribers can well afford to be such as the
poles will not be on their side of the road, and
then the fronting of their property has not
peen beautihed as those of the opposition
The greater number of those opposed to the
line are persons of intelligence and are Of far
more progressive spirit than any of the advo-
Gates of the right-of-way privileges As said
In previous letter the Maryland Telephone
station proves to be very satisfactory to all
who have use for phones and only necessitates
about five minutes walk to reach it. To re-
vert to progressiveness it is well to state that
stone walls and old broken down fences are
very good company with progress, but am
sure the handsome hedge divisions and borders
and well kept fencing are far better signs of pro-
gress. To plant poles directly in front of prop
erty, where every care has been exercised, will
mar the beauty and at the same time please
the Jealous nature of the very progressive resi-
gressive ideas which they may possess will be
very unsuccessful. TEN.
Mr.. Jean Wins His Case in the Higher
Court.-In the Court of Appeals the Mutual
Fire Insurance Company in Baltimore County
VS.. Martin l.. Jean. of Baltimore county, on an
appeal taken by the company, the Court of
Common Pleas of Baltimore having decided
adversely to the company the judgment of the
lower court was affirmed. The suit was to en-
force payment of assessments upon premium
notes. the annual interest on which notes at
SIX per cent. had been paid regularly up to
March /, 1900.
Their assessments varied from 164 per cent.
Hpon all notes dated before January 1, 1897, to
ger cent upon all notes dated between Janu-
ary LIST and April l, 1899. These assessments
were made to meet an indebtedness of $3.50
which had been accommodating since 1887. In
the lower court the defendant offered two
prayers the one covering the main point OF
defense, being 1.-The want of legally sufficient
evidence to show any valid assessment by the
directors, binding upon the defendant" Both
prayers we're granted and the plaintiff ex-
cepted to This ruling and took an appeal.
The decision of the higher court was based
upon the allure of the company to comply
with the TENS of its charter which requires
the directors, "Wtene0er loss may occur which
the company is liable to pay, to cause at the
neat nleeti7lgp an accurate statement to be MADE
of the proportion or sum to be contributed by
each member to make good such loss and to
notify the Members of the same and to pro-
coed after thirty days to collect thesame. The
bylaws of the company provide for the carry
ing out of this method of apportioning the
amount due from each policy holding member
of the company.
The decision set forth the fact that the COM
pany is what its title declares it to be, mutual
insurance company. Each member, to the
extent of his premium note,, insures every
other member who was such when he became
q member, or who becomes, and continues to
be such, during his own membership; and he
is in turn insured by every such member to
the extent of his premium note. The simple
inherent and imperative characteristics of this
contract are mutually and equality.
The appellee contended that the assessment
made was invalid for three reasons:
LIST. That he was called upon to contribute to
the payment of losses of more than $4,000
incurred before he became member.
I'd. That even if he were liable for such
losses, this assessment subjects him to La
bility much greater than his Just proportion.
Sd. That in making the assessment the dlrec-
tors departed from the method prescribed by
the charter.
The third reason provided the grounds for a
decision adverse to the company, in brief as
follows:
That the directors had not determined at the
first meeting after each of the several losses
that brought about Indebtedness, sought to be
met by the special assessment at issue, pro-
Forthcoming to each member the amount due
and collecting the same, else no such indebted
ness could have arisen that failure to do so
destroyed the mutually of the contract and
that such deferred assessments must necessari-
ly omit from obligation to pay, all those mem
bers who have in the meantime ceased to be
such. This is a wrong to the continuing mem
bers, nor can that wrong be righted by in
Guiding in the assessment those who have be-
come members since the loss occurred, since
it is equally wrong to them to subject them to
losses incurred year or even day before
they became members.
That the directors departed from the method
prescribed by the charter, which resulted in
dscharging large numbers of members who
have in the meantime left the company with
out paying their proportion of losses which
Hpcn the present hfehfbsrsassess"'ent 'mnosed
The main point in the decision is, that mu-
tual fire insurance companies must apportion
their losses to the membership as the losses
occur and forthwith collect the same by a
special assessment provided any fixed annual
assessment that is regularly laid and collected
fails to fully meet the loss.