The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-05-12
COURT OF APPEALS ORDERS
THIRD TRIAL OF SUIT
On Fuller Evidence, Judges Hsvcrsc
Position Taken In Former
Hearing.
VALIDITY OF INSURANCE POLICY
BurkeviiIc Nun. While Acting az Agent
for Philadelphia Company. Insured
His Property, Which Inter burned.

For tho second timo. the verdict in
tho case of T. Gilbert Wood, suing for
for himself the RoanolSo Sheet Metal
Company and J. ID. Wood. the Spring
Garden Insurance Company. OF Phila-
delphia, for recovery on an insurance
policy, has been reversed by tho United
States Circuit Court of Appeals, md
tho cause rcmanded for now trial. The
opinion AZ handed down yesterday was
signed by Judge Woods. Judge Ross
dissenting.
Wood was employed as agent OF tho
insurance company at Burkcvillo by
r. y. Young. 4 representative of tho
company. on January &c. 1909. lie
wrote out a policy for the Iiaytokah
Inn. his own property. and whom the
inn was burned the insurance COM
pany refused TO pay tho policy. on tho
grounds that Wood. employed by L
rs an agent, had not Informed the or
tccrs that the property belonged to
him. and had not given full details of
the risk
In the FIRST trial the jury found FOR
the plaintiff, and, after reviewing The
evidence on the appeal taken by the
company. the United States Circuit
Court OF Appeals reversed the verdict.
saying that judgment should have been
found Tor the defendant. and renandei
INC cause for new trial In th esecond
trial more ana fuller evidence was
brought out, ii being shown that j..
y. Young, representative of the COM
pany. was informed that Haytokah Inn
belonged to wood. but the jury found
tor the defendant. in accordance with
inc opinion of tho Court of Appeals
handed down after the first trial But.
I hn .f
VcrslnG the first verdict, was of opin-
ION that judgment should have been
found for the defendant, 1t was of
opinion that the evidence in tho sec-
ohd trial was not in favor OF tho de-
fendant.
JUDGE WOODS WRITES
GROUNDS FOR OPINION
In the words OF tho opinion handed
down yesterday by Judge Woods, the
nrst trial resulted in Judgment for
the plaintiff. Wood but the Judgment
/ was reversed in this court and tho
I cause rcmanded for new trial, the
/ court holding that tho verdict for the
( defendant should have been directed
| because the evidence showed that
/ Wood was mn agent OF the defendant
! Insurance company, and Issued n
, policy on his own property, IIaytokah
| Inn. The position of an agent who
issues policy to himself should be
! Oh tne utmost frankncSs. In tho
! opinion or the court he was not en-
Titled to recover unless he could show
clearly that the principal was advised.
on the second trial the defendant
| set up az the sole defense. that the
| plaintiff was the agent OF the defend
ant, and issued the policy in suit TO
himself. for his own benefit, and did
| not inform the defendant of tho risk,
including his ownership of the prop
! crty.'
After hearing the evidence on this
Issue In the light of the former de-
cision of this court, the district Judge
! directed a verdict for the defendant.
| The evidence Of the rlaintifr in the
| second trial was substantially differ
| cnt. and strong enough to require
| submission OF the issue of notice to
! the company OF the plaintiffs owner
! ship" The opinion then recited that
! Wood was employed by i. 4. Young.
representing tho company. and that
/ he wrote the policy on July 10. 1909.
and retained the policy. but sent cor
\ rect memoranda OF the policy to the
/ head offices. The court OF appeals
I was OF opinion that there was strong
| evidence in the second trial to show
! that Young as special agent OF the
company had full authority not only
to employ and discharge local agents.
but to represent the company gencr-
ally. and that the evidence adduced
might lead the jury to believe that
Young, as an agent, was empowered to
consent that Wood should Insure his
own property and that notice TO Young
| was notice to the company and that
as agent Young sanctioned and So
icitcd the Insurance