Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

has sued for an amount in excess of that stated in the contract, claim that the shipper was not entitled to recover anything because of his undervaluation of the horse. In such a case the courts will construe the liability of the carrier according to the agreed value of the property.

Geyer vs. U. S. Express Co. 50 Superior Ct. 301 (1912)

Danger In Using Criminal Process in Collecting a Debt.

In an action for malicious prosecution, a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff will be sustained where a constable testifies that he was instructed by the defendant to arrest the plaintiff on a warrant, charging the latter with obtaining goods by false representations, but, that if the plaintiff paid the amount of the debt which defendant claimed, the constable was "to let it go at that." It is against the law to use the criminal court as a collecting agency for a bad debt.

Squires vs. Job 50 Superior Ct. 289 (1912).

Summary Proceedings for Violation of Speed Law.

A summary conviction before a justice of the peace of a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act of April 27, 1909, P. L. 265, will not be sustained where the information charges that the defendant at a borough named "had unlawfully operated and run a motor vehicle recklessly, and at a greater rate of speed than one mile in five minutes," and the record of the justice merely states that the defendant was convicted of violating the act of assembly regulating the running and the speed of motor vehicles on the streets of the borough."

[ocr errors]

In such a case the information and record of the justice are wholly insufficient because they do not show in what way the defendant acted recklessly, nor that the rate of speed was in excess of twenty miles an hour, nor that the borough had put up any danger sign limiting the speed to twelve miles an hour, nor that the street upon which the defendant drove was in a dangerous or congested condition.

The general attitude of the appellate courts towards summary proceedings may be gathered from the following language taken from the opinion of Mr. Justice McCollum in the case of Com. v. Gelbert, 170 Pa. 426, some of it being in turn approved quotations from the most eminent of early authorities: "But if a complaint in writing is resorted to, being the substratum of the magistrate's jurisdiction, and in the nature of an indictment, it should contain a complete statement of the offense; for the evidence given upon the trial can only support the original charge, and can by no means extend or supply what is wanting in the complaint. The complaint must also contain a direct and positive charge against the defendant and not merely facts amounting to a presumption of guilt.

Commonwealth vs. Moller, 50 Superior 366 (1912).

Illegal Insurance Contract.

A life insurance company, which accepts applications for insurance in which the applicants state that all representations and agreements are reduced to writing therein, and has issued the policies and received the first year's premium, less the agent's commission, is not bound by an agreement made by the agent without the knowledge or authority of the company to return the premiums and cancel the policies, if a mortgage loan for a large amount is

not made by the company to the applicants within thirty days from the date of the agreement. The agreement set up by these plaintiffs, was a contract for a rebate of premiums, upon policies which it was intended should become an obligation of the company, the rebate to become payable unless the company within thirty days loaned $25,000 to the plaintiffs. This was a violation of the first clause of the statute above quoted; it was an advantage which the agent was by the statute expressly forbidden to give or promise and which all persons were forbidden knowingly to receive. The agreement was also a violation of the second clause of the statute above quoted in that it was an agreement as to a contract of life insurance, other than as plainly expressed in the policy. The defendant company had the right to employ the agent to solicit applications in the manner stated in the affidavit of defense, and so long as he did what he was thus authorized to do his action was perfectly lawful. The employment of an agent to do a lawful act certainly cannot be said to give him an implied authority to enter into contracts absolutely prohibited by law and the execution of which would render all the parties liable to prosecution for a misdemeanor. We are convinced that the contract upon which the plaintiffs rely was one not within the authority of the agent, as disclosed by the affidavit of defense, to make. Such an agreement cannot be enforced against the company because (1) it is not referred to in the application; (2) it is not within the authority of the agent to make; and (3) it is a clear violation of the Act of May 3, 1909, P. L. 405, which forbids rebates of premiums, and the making of any agreement as to life insurance other than is plainly expressed in the policy.

Reed vs. Phila. Life Ins. Co., 50 Superior 384 (1912).

Be careful to Insure in Name of Owner. Policy of Insurance

void unless issued in name of owner.

Where a policy of fire insurance for $1,000 specifies that $800 thereof is on a "one story composition roof, frame building," and $200 on the contents thereof consisting of fixtures of an amusement hall, and it appears that at the time the insurance was taken out, the insured while owning the building and contents, only leased the ground, the policy is void under a provision contained therein that it "shall be void if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional, and sole ownership; or if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple."

In such a case if the insurance has been placed by a person whose only relation with the insurance company is that of an insurance broker without any authority as an agent to write insurance and issue a policy for the company, the knowledge of such person of the actual condition of the title is not the knowledge of the company so as to estop the company from asserting a forfeiture of the policy for breach of a covenant as to "sole ownership."

Where a policy of fire insurance is for a sum in gross, but apportioned between a building and the contents thereof, and it appears that there is a breach of the covenant as to the "sole ownership" of the building, the policy is void, not only as to the building, but also as to the personal property.

Clymer Opera Co. vs. Rural Valley Mut. F. Ins. Co., 50 Superior 645 (1912).

Principal cannot ratify part only of his agent's contract.

When a principal has received money or property from his agent of which the latter had obtained possession in pursuance of a contract with another which he, as agent, had no authority to make or whose authority is denied, the principal must either return the money or property, or hold it subject to the contract through which it was obtained. Where one adopts a contract entered into without his authority, he must adopt it altogether. He cannot ratify the beneficial part, and reject the remainder.

In an action of assumpsit where it appears that the several defendants, being jointly interested in the stock of a corporation, authorized one of their number to make sales of a certain number of shares of stock, and that the agent had contracted with the plaintiff to sell to him some of these shares, for which the plaintiff paid the money, but never received the certificates, all of the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the return of the money which he had paid. They cannot deny the authority of their agent, and at the same time retain the money which their agent had received for their use and benefit.

Benjamin vs. Holgate, 51 Superior 104 (1912).

Claim against Beneficial Association. Rival Claimants.

A judgment against a beneficial association for want of an affidavit of defense in a suit for death benefits will not be stricken off where no irregularity appears on the face of the record, no fraud is alleged, and the only excuse for the default is that the defendant had filed a petition for an interpleader in the orphans' court for an issue to determine who was the owner of the fund.

When a defendant is seeking to have opened a judgment entered for want of an affidavit of defense, the burden is upon him to aver facts which will constitute a defense.

Even in a case where defendant asserts that there are rival claimants of the money which he is called upon to

« PoprzedniaDalej »