Meyers v. Continental Casualty Co.
Decision Date | 06 March 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 6988.,6988. |
Citation | 12 F.2d 52 |
Parties | MEYERS v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
George T. Priest, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
William R. Gentry, of St. Louis, Mo. (M. F. Watts, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District Judge.
This is a suit for specific performance of a contract of indemnity insurance, brought by William H. Meyers (hereinafter called plaintiff) against Continental Casualty Company, a corporation (hereinafter called defendant).
The plaintiff was engaged in the manufacture of wooden boxes and crates in the city of St. Louis, Mo. On November 2, 1921, he purchased from the defendant the policy of insurance on which this suit is predicated. The portions of the policy material to this inquiry read as follows:
Theodore Hadaller was employed by plaintiff at his manufacturing establishment in St. Louis. On September 23, 1922, Hadaller suffered injuries while operating, in the course of his employment by plaintiff, a circular saw driven by mechanical power. On November 14, 1922, Hadaller brought an action against the plaintiff in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis to recover damages on account of such injuries. Hadaller's petition contained two causes of action. In his first cause of action, Hadaller alleged, among other things, that plaintiff was negligent in failing to properly guard the saw, in failing to furnish Hadaller a safe place in which to work, in failing to warn him of the danger incident to his work, and in failing to instruct him how to use the saw, and that such negligence was the direct and proximate cause of his injuries. In his second cause of action Hadaller alleged, in addition to the matters set up in his first cause of action, that he was under the age of 16 years to wit, of the age of 14 years, at the time of the accident, and that his employment by plaintiff to work at such saw was prohibited by the statutes of the state of Missouri. On November 17, 1922, plaintiff was served with a summons and copy of the petition in the Hadaller suit. He immediately delivered the same to the defendant.
At the time plaintiff employed Hadaller, the latter furnished plaintiff with a certificate indicating he was then 16 years of age. On November 16, 1922, E. L. Frohardt, superintendent of the board of education at Granite City, Ill., furnished a certificate to the defendant to the effect that, according to the records of such board of education, Hadaller was born February 3, 1906. On November 14, 1922, Hadaller filed a petition in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, setting up therein that he was "fourteen and eleven-twelfths" years of age. This petition was sworn to by his mother, Maria Hadaller.
On December 6, 1922, Watts & Gentry, attorneys for the defendant, filed an answer and a motion to elect in behalf of Meyers in the Hadaller case. On December 7, 1922, the defendant, by its attorneys, addressed and forwarded to the plaintiff the following letter:
Plaintiff received the above letter in due course of mail, but made no reply thereto. On December 22, 1922, plaintiff called at the office of Watts & Gentry, attorneys for the defendant, and there discussed with William R. Gentry the contents of the above letter and the subject of the nonliability of the defendant if Hadaller was under the age of 16 years at the time he was injured. Gentry advised plaintiff that, if it should be determined that Hadaller was under 16 years of age at the time of the injury, the defendant would disclaim liability and would decline to go on with the defense of the action. Plaintiff stated to Gentry that, should the defendant decide not to continue with the defense on account of Hadaller's age, he would want to employ Gentry to continue the defense of the case for him. Gentry advised plaintiff that he would be glad to do so, unless there was some conflict between the plaintiff and defendant, but in event of such conflict, being counsel for the defendant, he would have to represent it.
On April 10, 1924, the Hadaller case came on for trial. The evidence showed conclusively that Hadaller was under 16 years of age at the time he was injured. After the evidence had been completed at the trial, and prior to the argument of the case, the defendant, through its counsel, addressed and delivered to the plaintiff the following letter:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yost
... ... 548; Union Indemnity Co. v ... Hossley, 142 Miss. 783, 107 So. 548; Maryland ... Casualty Co. v. Adams, 159 Miss. 88, 131 So. 544; ... Adams v. Casualty Co., 162 Miss. 237, 139 So. 453; ... v. Cote, 69 F.2d 136; General Tire Co. v. Standard ... Acc. Ins. Co. , 65 F.2d 237; Meyers v. Continental ... Casualty Co., 12 F.2d 52; Royle Mining Co. v ... Fidelity & Casualty Co., ... ...
-
Linenschmidt v. Continental Cas. Co.
... 204 S.W.2d 295 356 Mo. 914 Henry Linenschmidt, Appellant, v. Continental Casualty Company, a Corporation, (Garnishee) Respondent, L. A. Hofmann, Defendant No. 40093 Supreme Court of Missouri July 14, 1947 ... ... ...
-
Salonen v. Paanenen
... ... F. Lyon, for the ... plaintiff. H. B. White, for the defendant Maryland Casualty ... SPALDING, J. The ... plaintiff, having recovered a judgment against the ... that appears, acquiesced in the conduct of the case by the ... company. See Meyers v. Continental Casualty Co. 12 F.2d 52, ... 57 (C. C. A. 8); Ancateau v. Commercial Casualty Ins ... ...
-
Myers v. Continental Cas. Co.
...22 S.W.2d 867 223 Mo.App. 781 WILLIAM H. MYERS, RESPONDENT, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT. [*] Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. LouisDecember 3, 1929 ... Appeal ... from the Circuit ... Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 58 ... S.E. 969, 78 S.C. 73; Chicago-Coulterville Coal Co. v ... Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 130 F. 957; Meyers v ... Cont. Cas. Co., 12 F.2d 52; Fidelity & Cas. Co. of ... N.Y. v. Stewart Dry Goods Co., 271 S.W. 444, 208 Ky ... 429. (2) The court erred in ... ...