Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Schultz
Decision Date | 05 May 1897 |
Docket Number | 203. |
Citation | 80 F. 337 |
Parties | PHENIX INS. CO. v. SCHULTZ. [1] |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
T. J Kirkpatrick and John M. Slaton, for appellant.
Waller R. Staples and B. B. Munford (H. A. Latane and William Beasley, on brief), for appellee.
Before GOFF and SIMONTON, Circuit Judges, and BRAWLEY, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree entered in the chancery cause of J C. Schultz, receiver of the Franklin Brass Company, against the Phoenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn. The suit was instituted in the circuit court of Botetourt county, Va., on the 9th day of September, 1895, and removed, by appropriate proceedings, to the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Virginia, by which court the decree complained of was entered on the 26th of September, 1896. The bill alleges: That the Franklin Brass Company was, in the year 1891, the owner of certain real and personal property which is fully described, situated at Buchanan, Botetourt county, Va. That, being desirous of insuring said property the company authorized J. B. Moore & Co., insurance brokers, doing business in Richmond, Va., to procure insurance for the term of one year against loss or damage by fire on such property, as follows: $33,000 on machinery, machines, etc., including patterns; $18,000 on buildings; and $5,000 on stock material, and supplies. That J. B. Moore & Co., in July, 1891, applied to P. J. Otey & Co., insurance agents, doing business at Lynchburg, Va., for such insurance, who, after examination of the matter and inspection of the property, accepted the risks for the amount of $40,000, and delivered policies for the same to the insured. That, when these policies were reported to the insurance companies by their said agents, several of them objected to the form of the policies, of which J. B. Moore & Co., representing the Franklin Brass Co., were promptly advised. That P. J. Otey & Co. then requested that the policies should be returned, in order that the form might be issued. That the Franklin Brass Company authorized their said brokers to make the proposed changes, and to procure the insurance in accordance therewith. That J. B. Moore & Co., on September 1, 1891, representing the Franklin Brass Company, wrote P. J. Otey & Co., representing the insurance companies, returning the old and giving instructions as to the new policies desired; and that this communication was replied to on the 2d of September, 1891, in which correspondence the form of the policies and the sums that could be placed in different companies, as also the rate of insurance, were referred to and discussed, but no agreement was reached. That on September 3, 1891, P. J. Otey & Co. sent the following telegram from Lynchburg to J. B. Moore & Co., at Richmond, having reference to said insurance, viz.: 'With specific form, will write ten thousand at ninety cents, if it will help you. ' That J. B. Moore & Co., in a letter to P. J. Otey & Co., concerning the insurance, dated the 3d September, 1891, referring to such telegram, used this language viz.: That on the 4th 'September, 1891, at about 1 o'clock p.m., a fire occurred, by which all of said property was destroyed, the loss upon each item being greatly in excess of the aggregate insurance thereon. That, prior to said fire, P. J. Otey & Co. had indicated their willingness to insure said property, a full description of which, as also a division of the amounts of insurance on the several kinds of property, then being in their possession, with insurance placed amounting to $10,000, at 90 cents on the $100, if the assured, through its agents, would prepare a specific form, which it was alleged was duly prepared and deposited in the post office at Richmond, addressed to P. J. Otey & Co., on the 3d of September, 1891. That this form so mailed was satisfactory to said P. J. Otey & Co., as representatives of the insurance companies, and was accepted by them without objection. That, soon after the fire, said J. B. Moore & Co., as agents of the Franklin Brass Company, applied to P. J. Otey & Co. for the policy which they had agreed to furnish, and for the name of the company they had issued it for, tendering at the same time the premium therefor, and that they refused to deliver said policy, and declined to give the name of such company. That the plaintiff had been theretofore, by a decree of the circuit court of Botetourt county, in a cause therein pending, duly appointed receiver of said Franklin Brass Company, and fully authorized to take all necessary steps to collect its assets and discharge its liabilities. It was also set forth in the bill that the plaintiff had been but lately before informed that it was the Phoenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn for which said P. J. Otey & Co. so acted in the telegram of September 3, 1891, and that at that time they were the duly-authorized agents of said company, having in their possession policies of insurance signed and executed by its officers, which they were authorized to fill and deliver. The plaintiff therefore charged that in consideration of a premium of $90, which the Franklin Brass Company, through its agents, agreed to pay, which was acquiesced in by P. J. Otey & Co., the said defendant did, on the 3d day of September, 1891, agree to insure for one year therefrom the Franklin Brass Company against loss and damage by fire to its said property in the sum of $10,000, in the proportions on said property theretofore agreed upon, and also that the defendant did then and there agree to write out and deliver a policy for the same. The prayer of the bill was that the defendant be required specifically to perform the said agreement to insure the property and deliver the policy; that it be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $10,000, the amount insured, less the premium of $90, with interest on the residue; and for further general relief.
To this bill the defendant filed a demurrer, which, after argument and consideration, the court overruled, for reasons set forth in an opinion filed and made a part of the record, which so fully and clearly state the questions involved that this court, in disposing of the assignment of error relating to the demurrer, adopts the same, and quotes it in full, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Wolfson, Crim. A. No. 1909.
...that evidence that a letter is duly mailed carries with it the presumption that it carried sufficient postage. Phenix Insurance Co. v. Schultz, 80 F. 337, 340 (C.A. 4, 1897). Yet, the usual presumption that a letter properly stamped, addressed, and mailed is received by the addressee will n......
-
Sherman v. International Life Insurance Company of St. Louis
...Thomas, 131 Mo. 279; Cloyes v. Middlebury Elec. Co., 66 A. 1039; 30 Cyc. 140; Wallace v. Adams, 204 U.S. 425, 51 Law Ed. 547; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 80 F. 337; v. Nalty, 104 Wis. 464, 80 N.W. 726; 30 Cyc. 132; Ins. Co. v. Dennie, 88 F. 160, 167; 15 Ruling Case Law, pp. 1024, 1025, sec......
-
Bentler v. Brynjolfson
... ... used, must govern. 9 Cyc. 577; Travelers Ins. Co. v ... California Ins. Co., 1 N.D. 151, 8 L.R.A. 769, 45 N.W ... It can ... completed contract. 1 Elliott, Contr. § 36; Phenix ... Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 25 C. C. A. 453, 42 U. S. App. 483, ... 80 F. 337 ... An ... agreement is ... ...
-
Young's Market Co. v. Pioneer Produce Co.
... ... 143, 36 L.Ed. 1054; James v. Darby, ... 100 F. 224, 40 C.C.A. 341; McNicol v. New York Life Ins ... Co., 149 F. 141, 79 C.C.A. 11; Baird v. Pratt, ... 148 F. 825, 78 C.C.A. 515, 10 L.R.A ... Co. v. Galgate Ship Co., 68 F. 234, 15 C.C.A. 366; ... Phenix Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 80 F. 337, 25 C.C.A ... 453. A quite similar case to this is Brophy v. Idaho ... Produce & ... ...