Insurance Company v. Folsom

Decision Date01 October 1873
Citation21 L.Ed. 827,18 Wall. 237,85 U.S. 237
PartiesINSURANCE COMPANY v. FOLSOM
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York; the case being thus:

On the 6th of January, 1869, the schooner B. F. Folsom (John Orlando, master), and owned by a person whose name she bore, Mr. B. F. Folsom, resident in Philadelphia, together with Orlando, the captain and husband, sailed from Boston for Montevideo and Buenos Ayres. When out six days she sprung a leak, and in a few days afterwards became wholly disabled. Another vessel, bound for Bremen, passing along, took off all aboard and carried them to Bremerhaven, an outer port of Bremen, where, on the 18th of February, 1869, all were safely landed. The vessel itself was lost. At Bremerhaven, the master being wholly without funds or credit, could not telegraph. But he wrote two days after his arrival, that is to say, he wrote on the 20th of February, to Mr. Folsom, at Philadelphia, and mailed the letter on the day on which it was written.

On the 1st of March, 1869, the Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company of New York insured the vessel, valued at $35,000, on Folsom's application, 'at and from the first day of January, 1869, at noon, until the first day of January, 1870, at noon;' nothing being said in the policy about 'lost or not lost,' nor about who was the master of the vessel, nor on what voyage she then was.

The letter of the master to Folsom which had been mailed at Bremen on the 20th of February, 1869, arriving in due course at Philadelphia was received by Folsom, and the loss of the vessel being indisputable, Folsom claimed the insurance-money. The company declining to pay, he brought suit in ordinary form on the policy. Plea, the general issue.

The cause was tried without a jury, the jury having been waived by a stipulation duly filed, pursuant to the act of Congress of March 3d, 1865, which authorizes such mode of trial and enacts in regard to it,1

'The findings of the court upon the facts, which findings MAY be either general or special, shall have the same effect as the verdict of a jury. The rulings of the court in the case, in the progress of the trial, when excepted to at the time, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States upon a writ of error, or upon appeal, provided the rulings be duly presented by a bill of exceptions. When the finding is special, the review may also extend to the determination of the sufficiency of the facts found to support the judgment.'

On the trial the policy having been put in evidence, and it being admitted that the proper preliminary proofs of loss and of interest had been furnished by the plaintiff to the company, the plaintiff rested. The record proceeded:

'Whereupon the counsel for the said defendant did then and there insist before the judge of the said Circuit Court, on the behalf of the said defendant, that the said several matters so produced and given in evidence on the part of the said plaintiff as aforesaid, were insufficient and ought not to be admitted or allowed as decisive evidence to entitle the said plaintiff to a verdict. But to this the counsel for the said plaintiff did then and there object, and insist before the judge of the said Circuit Court that the same were sufficient and ought to be admitted and allowed to entitle the said plaintiff to a verdict, and the judge of the said Circuit Court did then and there declare and deliver his opinion, that the said several matters so produced and given in evidence on the part of the said plaintiff were sufficient to entitle the said plaintiff to a verdict.'

To this ruling the defendant excepted.

The insurance company then showed that on the 22d of February, 1869, there had been published in various newspapers in New York, as also in two newspapers in Philadelphia, this telegraphic despatch:

'LIVERPOOL, February 21st.

'The Orlando, from Baltimore for Buenos Ayres, has been lost at sea. Crew saved and landed at Bremerhaven.'

Folsom had seen and read this despatch, and the insurance company which took, at its office in New York, the papers containing it, kept what was called a despatch-book, in which the despatch, together with records of seventeen other marine disasters, was, on the same 22d of February when it appeared, posted by a clerk, whose duty it was to post in such book notices of all marine disasters. Over the despatch was written in large letters 'ORLANDO.'

It was admitted by the plaintiff that in Lloyd's Register there was no schooner named Orlando, but that there was a bark named Orlanda, a whaler, and that a bark of the name of Orlando had been owned, within two or three years, by a person who was then a partner of the plaintiff; and that at the time when he applied for the insurance he did not call the company's attention to the publication which had appeared in the papers, and that he made the application himself.

The company in turn admitted that in the Register for the year 1869, which they used in their office, as in the Register of 1868, which they also had used, the schooner 'B. F. Folsom' was rated, and that under such name and rating there appeared the name of 'J. Orlando, captain.'

The company then offered in evidence Folsom's application for insurance, which was in these words:

'Insurance is wanted by B. F. Folsom for account of whom it may concern, loss, if any, payable to him, for $3000, on schooner B. F. Folsom; vessel valued at $35,000, and to be insured at and from the first day of January, 1869, at noon, until the first day of January, 1870, at noon.'

The purpose of the offer of this evidence was apparently to show that in applying for insurance Folsom had suppressed the name of the master, Orlando, and the ports to which the vessel was sailing, to wit, Montevideo and Buenos Ayres, and so to bring on the inference that in the application he meant to divert the company's recollection or attention from the despatch previously received by it and on its books, in which it was mentioned that a vessel, where the peculiar name of 'Orlando' appeared, and which vessel the despatch mentioned was on her way to Buenos Ayres, as one port, had been lost at sea.

The plaintiff objected to the reception of the evidence on the ground that the application was merged in the policy, and that the plea did not allege that the policy was obtained by any fraud or misrepresentation. The court rejected the evidence.

The company's counsel then requested the court to rule on numerous propositions, substantially as follows:

First. That as the loss occurred before the issuing of the policy, and the words, 'lost or not lost,' were not contained therein, the insurance never took effect, and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not recover.

Second. That at the time of the application for insurance, and the issuing of the policy, the plaintiff ought to have communicated to the company——

(a.) The existence of the despatch appearing in the newspapers.

(b.) That he had seen it.

(c.) The surmises or conjectures, if any, which he had with reference to the same.

Third. That it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove affirmatively, that at the time of application for insurance and of the issuing of the policy, he had communicated to the company the information that the vessel had sailed on a voyage from Boston to Montevideo and Buenos Ayres, and that the name of her master was John Orlando.

Fourth. That the master having failed to advise the owner by telegraph of the loss of the vessel, the plaintiff could not recover.

But the judge of the Circuit Court refused to rule in accordance with any one of these several requests; to which refusals the counsel for the defendant excepted.

Both parties here rested. The record proceeded:

'And the counsel for the defendant, after the putting in of the evidence was completed, and before the conclusion of the trial, further insisted that the matters so proved and given in evidence, on the part of the said defendant, as hereinbefore set forth, taken in connection with the matters proved and given in evidence, on the part of the plaintiff, as hereinbefore set forth, were sufficient and ought to be admitted and allowed as decisive evidence to entitle the said defendant to a decision in their favor, and to bar the said plaintiff of his action aforesaid, and did then and there pray the said court to admit and allow the said matters so proved and given in evidence, in connection as aforesaid, to be conclusive evidence in favor of the said defendant, to entitle them to a decision in their favor, and to bar the said plaintiff of his action aforesaid; but the said court decided that the matters so proved and given in evidence on the part of the said defendant, taken in connection with the matters so proved and given in evidence on the part of the said plaintiff, were not sufficient to bar the said plaintiff of his action aforesaid, and refused to make and render its decision in favor of the said defendant, but found in favor of the plaintiff, upon the evidence, for the sum of $3348.20; to which decision the said counsel for the defendant then and there duly excepted.'

Thereupon the counsel for the defendant requested the court to make the certain special findings of fact [setting them out], to the end that the same might be reviewed. The record proceeded:

'But the court refused to make any special findings of fact herein, to which refusal the counsel for the defendant did then and there except.'

The company brought the case here on error.

Mr. J. C. Carter, for the Insurance Company, plaintiff in error:

1. A radical error of the court below was in refusing to make any special finding of facts. The chief argument of the other side will be that it has not done so, and that, therefore, under the act of March 3d, 1865, we have not got the case which we wish to have the judgment of this court upon at all before it. But this omission of the court below to comply with our request w...

To continue reading

Request your trial
109 cases
  • Virginia & West Virginia Coal Co. v. Charles
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 14 July 1917
    ......From the. recitals in a deed from Dennis, clerk, to Buchanan Company,. to be mentioned later, it appears that some time prior to. 1876 the 200,000-acre tract was ...595,. 607, 24 L.Ed. 793; Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U.S. 358, 365, 26 L.Ed. 395; Insurance Co. v. Cushman, . 108 U.S. 51, 65, 2 Sup.Ct. 236, 27 L.Ed. 648. . . Does. the act ... appellate court for review. See Insurance Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237, 249, 21 L.Ed. 827. It is not. within my province to express an opinion on this ......
  • Fleischmann Const Co v. United States Forsberg, 50
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 1 March 1926
    ...19 L. Ed. 608; Miller v. Insurance Co., 12 Wall. 285, 300, 20 L. Ed. 398; Dickinson v. Planters' Bank, supra, 257; Insurance Co. v. Folson, 18 Wall. 237, 248, 21 L. Ed. 827; Cooper v. Omohundro, 19 Wall. 65, 69, 22 L. Ed. 47; Insurance Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158, 161, 22 L. Ed. 511; Martinton......
  • Hill v. Walker
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 1 February 1909
    ...... action was brought by George W. Walker, doing business as the. Walker Stave Company, against the defendants (the plaintiffs. in error), to recover a balance claimed to be due on a. ... Norris. v. Jackson, 76 U.S. 125, 19 L.Ed. 608; Insurance. Company v. Folsom, 85 U.S. 249, 21 L.Ed. 827; Lehnen. v. Dickson, 148 U.S. 71, 13 Sup.Ct. ......
  • Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 27 April 1907
    ...... . . ADAMS,. Circuit Judge. . . The. mining company brought its action against the indemnity. company to recover on a contract whereby the latter ... executed by defendant extending the insurance so as to cover. the year ending June 1, 1903. A like extension followed. covering the in question ...398; Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258,. 269, 21 L.Ed. 493; Insurance Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237, 249, 21 L.Ed. 827; Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, 100. U.S. 24, 31, 25 L.Ed. 531; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT