The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1910-05-02
A Seeming Labored Effort
to Convey an Erroneous
Impression About a Su-
preme Court Decision.

The Insurance press Of the couu.
try has Of sate bad a great deai 10
say about a recent decision OF the
Supreme Court Of Michigan. on Ger.
tain phases OF the question OF the
liability Of policy holders for rs
ssssmsnts.
Contrast the statements OF some
q these papers with the real facts.
and Judge As to whether or not
tAese statements are wholly unsn
sPlred and disingerssted.
The case IN question Il officially
referred 20 as Ely vs. Oakland Cir.
euit Judge in the Suireme Court
q hiehisaa. and Is reported In ls5
X ". zi5. aud relates 10 the liabsi
~ Ter Assessments OF different
eases Of policy holders of the Cit
1ens Mutual Fire Insurance tom.
PAM Of Holly, Michigan.
One paper In Referring 10 the
case. says. An important feature
q me decision "a that the Supreme
Court sets aside 4 bylaw % the
company which limited the amount
q she assessment which could be
szposea.
Another paper. In It's comments
e ne case. says: The Citizens
hutnal tsauod four kinds OF roll.
e.ss--an ordinary mutual form. a
hicEigan standard form With a..
ssssnent clause attached. Michl.
gan standard form without the as
sess1ent clause. and a farm policy.
me last tHo we're Illegal"
y y Interesting to note what the
Court actually did decide IN this
ease and the parties responsible
Ior ne foregoing statements would
sefHialy experience some difficult.
. Z Feeonciling thsir statements
VIE ne Courts real decision.
appears that the company was
nsatns lhree forms Of policies:
f'sst-flie usual mutual policy pro
"1ias Tor assessments. second
A3sh premium policies with the
'aaioHihs clause: This policy II
subject % the conditions Of the
ehsfsef Of this company and Of the
81 anaer witch the company ia or.
sAnized. az 70 liability of members
@ assessment for losses incurred.
ne third class were also a.ah
premium policies which were in
lsasHage and form exactly Ike
Ao@e 10 the second class. excrpt
- foregoing assessment clause
- Wholly omitted from the policy.
lne court. IN deciding the case.
nesa nfsf. that the company was
sa.apfized 70 write and issue cash
grMiufa policies. and the holders
y such policies az contained the
80 - aisfis liabaity cIaus. we're
sa''e 70 assessments; second. that
~ holders Of such cash premium
'eles as dld not contain the as.
a.Aent liability clause we're not
So 2 assessments.
- taftner appears from the de.
..a.gh q the Court that the com
go @as inaHfing farm risks.
-, rs,ra' y The terms Of the statute
.'aVl which the company was do
- easiness. was prohibited, and
a'h the company IN consequence
70 legal right 10 insure. and
s point the Court held that
s flsk policies. being In viola.
49, p 1ne statute under which the
',1pany was operating. we're void
o ~ company Is organized and
,.asiAs uaeer the laws Of Wash.
~, which expressly provide
A. a siufnal company may Issue
~ W policies and accept cash
g Nv in lieu OF assessments.
,.. ~ following offer, which has
g1aled IN large number OF the
81, ss papers Of the Northwest.
NJ holds good;
=. $500 REWARDI
,,, mnen some hirellng Of the In
s..s nes combine tells you that you
Is "s large liability in accept.
~ OF our cash premium pol.
49,, yiisr him a reward of $500 10
so. y We win pay the bin.
''HwEsrERh MUTUAL FIRE
AssocikTIoA.