Case Name: James Ward, Respondent, v. Charles Tucker, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1893-12-21
Citations: 7 Wash. 399
Docket Number: No. 942
Parties: James Ward, Respondent, v. Charles Tucker, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 399–403

Head Matter:
[No. 942.
Decided December 21, 1893.]
James Ward, Respondent, v. Charles Tucker, Appellant.
APPEAL —RECORD—NOTICE OP SETTLEMENT — MARINE INSURANCE — ACTION BY BROKER FOR PREMIUM — CONTRACTS OF FOREIGN COMPANIES — CANCELLATION — EVIDENCE.
Where respondent does not appear at the settlement of a statement of facts, and there is no copy of the notice of settlement in the record, the statement will be stricken on motion.
A marine insurance broker may sue for the recovery of the insurance premium, without showing that it has actually been paid by him, as it is the custom in marine insurance business for the broker to be his own principal.
Contracts made outside the state with foreign ihsurance companies are not covered by the law governing insurance companies doing business within the state.
Where it is made a part of a contract of marine insurance that the rules as to short rates should apply, the insurance is terminated by a request of the assured for cancellation.
Where policies of insurance have been received by the assured and he has promised to pay for them, the burden is upon him, in an action to recover premium, to show that the policies have not been regularly executed.
AVhere insurance premiums are payable in English money and it is necessary to give their equivalent in money of the United States, it is not error to allow a witness to testify as to the result of calculations made by him reducing the amount from one standard to another.
App>edl from Superior Court, Pierce Coimty.
O'Brien cfi Robertson, for appellant.
Cal/dns cé Shackleford, for respondent.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Stiles, J.
The respondent did not appear at the settlement of the statement of facts, and there is no copy of the notice in the record. The judge who tried the cause certifies that the defendant had given due notice to the opposite party and his attorneys that the statement had been prepared, and filed, and that it would be settled upon a certain day, April 7, 1893. Upon this respondent moves to strike the statement, and the motion must be granted. The settlement of a statement of facts is the process by which this court acquires jurisdiction of the respondent for the purpose of inquiring into matters which, otherwise, would not be a part of the record. If the respondent appears and makes no objection, he waives notice, and the jurisdiction is complete, but if he remains away he has a right to say that the finding of the judge that he was duly served is not sufficient. We held substantially this in Mooney v. State, 2 Wash. 487 (28 Pac. Rep. 363), where the respondent made no appearance in this court.
In the case at bar appellant had ample notice of respondent's position by his brief, and time to supply the record if notice was in fact given.
There being no assignment of error outside of the statement, the judgment is affirmed.
All concur.