Columbia Insurance Company of Alexandria v. Lawrence

IN error to the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in the county of Alexandria.

At January term 1829, a suit between the same parties was before this court, on a writ of error. 2 Peters 25. It was an action instituted by Lawrence, the survivor of Lawrence and Poindexter, on a policy of insurance against fire, to recover from the Columbia Insurance Company of Alexandria, the amount of a loss sustained by them by the destruction of a mill by fire; alleged to have been duly insured by the defendants. A verdict and judgment had been rendered in favour of the plaintiff; and on the case coming into this court, the judgment of the circuit court of the county of Alexandria was reversed, and the case was remanded to that court with directions to award a venire facias de novo. The mandate of this court stated, that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury, that the interest of the assured in the property insured is such as is described in the original offer for insurance and in the policy: and also in this, that the said circuit court erred in this, in the opinion to the jury, that the evidence was sufficient to be left to them, from which they might infer that the defendants waived the objections to the certificate and other preliminary proof required by the ninth rule annexed to the policy.

On the coming in of the mandate, November 5th, 1830, the plaintiff in the circuit court discontinued the suit.

In September 1831, Joseph W. Lawrence, survivor of Lawrence and Poindexter, instituted another suit against the same defendants, on the same policy of insurance; and after various pleadings and demurrers, &c. the case was tried by a jury in October 1834, and a verdict and judgment entered for the plaintiff.

The defendants excepted to the charge of the court, in two bills of exceptions; and they prosecuted this writ of error.

The case brought up by this writ of error was in all respects the same with that which was before the court in 1829: with the exceptions fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The case was argued by Mr Jones, for the plaintiffs in error; and by Mr Swann and Mr Berry, for the defendant.

Mr Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.