Eames v. Home Insurance Company

• Decision Date: 01 October 1876
• Parties: EAMES v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

94 U.S. 621

24 L.Ed. 298

EAMES v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY.

October Term, 1876

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. J. C. Robinson for the appellant.

Mr. George O. Ide, contra.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill in equity filed in the court below by Eames and Cooley, the appellants, against the Home Insurance Company of New York, the appellees, to require said company to issue to the complainants a policy of insurance against loss or damage by fire, in pursuance of a contract for that purpose alleged to have been made with their agents in Illinois, and for such other and further relief as shall be just and equitable. The court below, upon hearing, dismissed the bill.

The contract referred to is alleged to have been made by means of certain parol communications and written correspondence, which are detailed and set forth in the record. The subject on which insurance was desired by the complainants was a flouring-mill and its machinery situated at Staunton, in Macoupin County, Ill., which was destroyed by fire in the night of 28th of October, 1872. Cooley, one of the complainants, had previously procured insurance on the same property from the defendant in February, 1870, which had run for two years, and had then been permitted to expire. The amount of insurance at that time was $3,500, and the rate five per cent per annum. The policy was issued on the 28th of February, 1870, but ran one year from the 14th of that month, and was renewed for a second year by the payment of a second premium in 1871.

Cooley having taken Eames into partnership and sold him half of the property, the application for the insurance in question was made in their joint names. The negotiations were commenced on the twelfth day of October, 1872, at Bunker Hill, in Macoupin County, between Eames and James A. Beach, the company's locan agent at that place. They had a general agent, A. C. Ducat, at Chicago; and it seems that local agents were not authorized to take extra-hazardous risks, to which class the property in question belonged, without referring to the general agent.

At the interview referred to, Eames, there being then no insurance on the mill, applied to Beach, who was agent for the Home Insurance Company of New York, and of the Hartford and Phoenix companies of Hartford, Conn., for $9,000 insurance; and an application to the Home Insurance was made out on a printed blank of the company for $4,000, at five and a half per cent. The application, numbered 105, was duly filled up with answers to the various questions, and signed by Eames, in the name of 'Eames & Cooley,' and dated the twelfth day of October, 187 . From an agreement as to certain facts made by the attorneys in the cause, it appears that said Beach forwarded said application by mail to Arthur C. Ducat, the general agent, in a letter, of which the following is a copy:——

'[Office of James A. Beach, notary public and insurance agent. Represents Home Insurance Company of New York, Hartford of Hartford, Phoenix of Hartford, Andes of Cincinnati.]

'BUNKER HILL, ILL., Oct. 12, 1872.

'A. C. DUCAT, Esq., Genl. Agt.:

'DEAR SIR,—I enclose app. for ins. which you have carried for two years, and was not renewed in Feb'y, because I asked 5 1/2 (you were carrying it at 5 per cent). They now want to insure again. The other large mill in Staunton has lately burned, which is, I suppose, the reason. I have not learned the particulars, but some think the owners burned it.

'Yours truly,

JAS. A. BEACH.'

That, on the 14th October, 1872, said Ducat received said letter of Beach and its enclosure, and wrote to said Beach in respect thereto a letter, whereof the following is a copy:——

'[Home Insurance Company of New York. General agency for States of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Arthur C. Ducat, general agent.]

'CHICAGO, Oct. 14, 1872.

'JAS. A. BEACH, Agt., Bunker Hill, Ill.:

'DR. SIR,—We have yours of the 12th, and application of Eames & Cooley on flour-mill at Staunton. Our present rate on this risk will not be less than 6 1/2 per cent, which is probably more than they will pay. If they wish a Home policy at that rate let us know, and we will send you ticket.

'Truly yours,

ARTHUR C. DUCAT, Genl. Agent.'

Which letter was returned to said Ducat by mail by said Beach, Oct. 18, 1872, with the indorsement in the handwriting of said Beach:——

'The Phoenix will carry $3,000 at 6 per cent; will you not do the same?

Yours truly,

'JAMES A. BEACH.'

Across which is indorsed, in pencil, Oct. 18, 1872, in the handwriting of said A. C. Ducat:——

'No; 6 1/2 per cent is our rate.'

On Oct. 18, 1872, said Ducat mailed to said Beach a letter, of which the following is a copy:——

'[Letter-head of Chicago general agency.]

'CHICAGO, ILLS., Oct. 18, 1872.

'JAMES A. BEACH, Agt., Bunker Hill, Ill.:

'DR. SIR,—Yours received. We cannot go under 6 1/2 per cent on Eames & Cooley flour-mill.

'Truly yours,

ARTHUR C. DUCAT, Genl. Agent.'

At this point Eames testifies that he received a letter from Beach, on or about the twenty-second day of October, 1872 (which was destroyed by the fire in the mill, and, therefore, could not be produced), in which Beach stated that he had received an answer from the Home Company, and that they would not take the risk for less than six and a half per cent. He further testifies that this letter enclosed an application to the Hartford Insurance Company, partly filled up by Beach, and sent to him (Eames) to answer some of the questions, and to be signed by him; that, in a previous conversation between him and Beach, his complement of insurance not being made up by the four thousand that the Home would take, and the three thousand that Phoenix would take, Beach told him that he was agent for the Hartford, but did not know whether they would take any risk, but that he would write them, and, if they would, he would send him (Eames) an application to fill out; that, in a day or two after, the letter referred to came, enclosing the said application to the Hartford, filled up for $2,000, at the rate of six per cent; that the letter added that he (Beach) had not heard from the Hartford Company, but as he was going to write to him (Eames) in regard to the Home proposition, he enclosed the Hartford application, partly filled up, for Eames to finish and return, so that, if the Hartford Company would take the risk, he would have the application ready to send right on. In answer to this letter of Beach, Eames says he wrote his next letter, enclosing the application to the Hartford Company, and accepting the proposition of the Home Company.

It is admi ted that he wrote, and that Beach received, the following letter on or about Friday, the 25th of October, 1872, enclosing the application referred to, filled up and signed; namely:——

'STAUNTON, ILL., Oct. 25, 1872.

'Mr. JAMES A. BEACH, Bunker Hill, Ill.:

'DEAR SIR,—I believe I have answered all the questions necessary, and to the best my knowledge. 6 1/2 per cent is pretty heavy, but I guess we will have to stand it, as I do not know where we can do better at present.

'Yours, &c.,

EAMES & COOLEY.'

On Monday, the 28th of October, 1872, Beach mailed a letter to Ducat, the general agent, of which the following is a copy:——

'BUNKER HILL, Oct. 28, 1872.

'Hon. A. C. DUCAT.

'No. 105, Staunton Mill, @ 6 1/2.

'DEAR SIR,—Please send me a ticket for $4,000, ins. on appl'n.

'Yours truly,

JAMES A. BEACH.'

Oct. 29, 1872, Beach sent telegraphic message to Ducat, of which the following is copy:——

'[Dated Bunker Hill, Ill., 29, 1872; received at Chicago, Oct. 29, 11.20 A.M.] 'To A. C. DUCAT, Home Ins. Co.:

'Do not return ticket for mill insurance: it is burned.

'JAS. A. BEACH.'

Oct. 29, 1872, Ducat mailed to said Beach a letter, of which the following is a copy:——

'[Home Insurance Company of New York, general agency for States of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Arthur C. Ducat, general agent.]

'CHICAGO, ILL., Oct. 29, 1872.

'JAS. A. BEACH, Agt., Bunker Hill, Ill.:

'DEAR SIR,—Yours of the 28th, requesting ticket on the staunton Mill, came duly this morning, and in a few minutes your telegram arrived announcing the burning of the mill. We came very near being caught, but are glad it is no worse. If we had not demanded the additional 1/2 per cent we should have had $4,000 to pay.

Yours truly,

'ARTHUR C. DUCAT.'

This is all the correspondence bearing upon the alleged contract, and the first question is, whether the clause in Eames's letter of Oct. 25, in these words, 'Six and a half per cent is pretty heavy, but I guess we will have to stand it, as I do not know where we can do better at present,' refers to the negotiation with the Home Insurance Company, and was an acceptance of their terms. Eames insists that that was what he meant by it; and if he did, on or about the 22d of October, receive a letter from Beach of the purport which he states, it would seem that there could be little doubt on the subject. Mr. Beach, in giving his testimony, was at first uncertain whether he wrote a letter or not; he had no recollection of sending such a letter; and his final conclusion was, that he handed the application to the Hartford Company to Eames at Bunker Hill. Eames, on the contrary, testifies that he did not see Beach after being informed of the general agent's letter of Oct. 18, stating that the Home Company could not go under six and a half per cent, until after the fire. The presumptions which apply in such cases are in favor of Eames's account. His testimony as to receiving the letter is affirmative, and his recollection of its contents circumstantial. Beach's is negative: he does not recollect writing it; and the interview in which he supposes he gave Eames the application to the Hartford may well be confounded with the interview they had when an...