The Saint Paul globe., 1905-02-25
SANTA Ff MUST PAY
FOR FLOOD DAMAGE
Supreme Court Holds That
Railroad Company Should
Have Hurried Goods

The most interesting case to be de-
cided during the week by the supreme
court was that Of the Bibb Broom
company VS.. the Santa Fe Railway
company. This case came from the
Hennepin county courts, where a de-
cision awarding damages to the plain
tiff was rendered.
The case involved only a single car
of broom corn, of a merely nominal
value but the circumstances attend
ing the contention brought out some
peculiar points of interest A carload
of broom corn was shipped from Texas
a year ago last spring, consigned to
the Bibb company in Minneapolis. Into
Kansas City the car came over the
Santa Fe line. There 1T was to be
transferred to the Great Western
tracks to be transported by that COM
pany into Minneapolis.
The car was not transferred imme-
diately and when the flood swept Kan
sas City that spring the car of broom
corn caught the brunt of the COM
bined furies Of the Kaw and the Mis-
souri,. The broom company sued to re-
cover and the defendant company
placed in defense that it was impos-
sible for them TO foreSee and prevent
the flood and were, therefore, not La
bic. The decision of the lower court
in favor of the plaintiff was upheld and
the following is the syllabus of the Su-
preme court decision:
1T is the duty of a common carrier to
whom goods are delivered for tranSpor-
tation to forward them promptly and
without unreasonable delay TO their des-
tination.'
flxy
and carelcssly delays the shipment, and
the goods are overtaken in transit and
damaged by an act of God, which would
not have caused the damage had there
been no delay. he is liable. even though
the act of God could not reasonably have
been anticipated. The negligence and
unreasonable delay is such proximate
or concurring cause as renders a carrier
liable. This rule applies whether the
goods in their nature are perishable or
-perishable." Brown, j.
Important Insurance Case
The supreme court ruled yesterday
upon three appeals of special interest.
One of these was in the case of Ham
ming Stramback, by A. L. Hern, guar
dian ad litem, VS.. Fidelity Mutual Life
Insurance Company of Philadelphia.
In this case, which was summed up in
decision by Judge Lewis, the court
decides that in cases of contest over
the payment of insurance claims on
life, when the company alleges, as a
reason for payment that the pol
Icy has lapsed, the date upon which
the first payment is made is to be TAX
Ell as the time when the insurance
upon the policy holder becomes opera
tive
The syllabus in the case follows:
Hamming Stramback, by A. L. Hern,
guardian ad litem, appellant, vs. Fidel--
ity Mutual Life Insurance Company of
Philadelphia, respondent
A life insurance policy provided that it
was made in consideration of the pay
ment in advance of s55.02 on delivery, and
thereafter upon the Sth day of September
and March of each and every year until
the premium for fifteen full years should
have been paid. The policy further pro-
Vided: /" But in any event this policy shall
continue in force only for the period ac-
tually paid" and that 1t should not be in
operation until actual payment of the
first premium and delivery of the policy
during the lifetime and good health of the
insured. The forfeiture clause read: "If
any premium be not paid when due, this
policX shall be void until duly reinstated
during the lifetime and good health of the
insured
An application signed by the insured
was dated Aug. 25. 1902 The policy is.
sued was dated Sept g. The first pre-
MUM was paid concurrently with deliv-
cry of the policy to the insured Sept "a.
1902. The second semi-annual premium