Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-02-13
JUDGE EICHELBERGER HOLDS
THAT IT is NOT BEYOND
SEAS.
OVERRULES DEMURRER
Court Holds That the Insurance Pol.
ICY OF Eber Currie Was in Full
Force When He Was
Killed in Canal Zone,

Judge Eichelberger has lust handed
down remarkable opinion in the
case of Eunice Currie of Eldop
against the Continental Casualty Co.
OF Chicago, in which he holds that
the Panama canal zone is a part Of
tne United States and not beyond the
seas.
The suit is brought by the widow of
Eber Currie. who was killed while an
engineer in the canal zone, near
Gorgona, to recover on an insurance
policy held in the defendant company
for $1,000. The contention of the
company was that the policy was not
in force and effect in Panama be-
cause the canal zone was beyond the
seas and also that the policy had
been cancelled" The plaintiff
claims and has substantiated the
claim that when defendant company
notified his wife that the contract and
policy did not apply to Panama he de-
manded the refund of premium paid
year in advance. This, the plaintiff
claims, the company refused to do.
Covered the Zone.
The opinion handed down by Judge
Eichelberger is on a demurrer of the
defendant. claiming that the policy
did not cover the, canal zone, as that
was part of the United States be-
vond the seas, overrules their conten-
ton, and finds that the canal zone Is
actually part Of the United States.
The opinion in part follows:
"The plaintiff sues for the death OF
her husband, caused by an accident,
which happened, as alleged in her pc
tition, at Gorgona situated in the
Isthmus of Panama zone, on tbs line
of the Panama railroad in thst zone.
which she alleges to be tract of
country conveyed to the United States
by treaty between the United States
and the Republic of Panama, publish.
ed February rs, 1904 1t is provided in
the policy that 1t covers only injuries
received in the United States, not in
cludingt its parts beyond the seas
The petition further alleges that
there was some controversy between
the decedent and the company as to
whether or not the insurance was In
force while Currie was working at
the place where he was afterward
killed and that said Currie wrote a
letter TO the company In consequences,
in which he stated that he had under
stood through information to his wife
that his policy was no use to me,
on account of the above mentioned
clause. He further stated that If 1t
was of no benefit to him he would
expect the company to remit the bal
ance due for the part of the year
from date of such notice, to his wife.
as he expected to stay there that
year, and asking for reply. The pc
tition sets out the answer of the COM
pany to this letter in which it was
stated If you will present the policy
at this office or send it here 1t will
be cancelled, and refund of premium
will be made as provided in the short
rider attached to It, and alleges that
by reason of the failure Of the COM
pany to return said premium it had
waived the clause of the policy as to
ed States.
"The defendant demurred to this
petition on the grounds that the in
juries had not been received within
the United States, but on the Isthmus
of Panama and beyond the seas; also
that prior to the injury and death of
said Currie be cancelled and annulled
said policy as shown by said letters
atteched as exhibits to the petition"
Cites Porto Rico.
Judge Eichelberger cites the Porto
Rico question in his opinion.
"The treaty ceding Porto Rico was
made February 6, 1899, and ratitica-
ton exchanged April II, 1899. On
April 10, 1900, the Foraker act to pro
vide revenues and civil government
for Porto Rico was passed. taking ef-
feet May /, 1900. The supreme court
of the United States held the Island
of Porto Rico upon the signing Of the
treaty with Spain ceased to be for
eign country and became territory
of the United States"
The concluding paragraph of the
opinion says:
II conclude that the policy was not
cancelled. but was in full force at the
time of the death of the insured and
the demurrer will be overruled, to
which ruling the defendant excerpts
Jacques & Jaques represented the
plaintiff and McNett & McNett the
insurance company.