Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/459

 JEFFBIES V. UNION MUT. LIFE INS. CO. 451 �able length. A suit was brotight in this court, by an àdùiiii* îstrator named Jeffries, on a life insuranoe policy. The case ■went from this court to the supreme court of the United States, and the supreme court reversed this court on this proposition. The averment made in the application by the insured was that he was a single man and not a married man. �This court held, in the light of the authorities as they were then supposed to exist, that that question should not be held as an absolute warranty, but, connected with the facts, to be submitted to the jury, whether itwas a matter material to the case. The supreme court held the sharp doctrine that it was a warranty, and if he represented himself as single and was married, there could be no recovery. The case came back for trial and evidence was produced to show that the representa- tion of the plaintif? was written down as an answer by the agent of the underwriter, he, the agent, supposing that to be the man's condition, without relying upon his statement or paying any attention to it. The matter came up for trial and the jury found for plaint iff, and the court set aside the verdict, as it did not think the testimony suffieient to establish the f act. A second trial was had — a f uUer trial — and a verdict was again rendered for the plaintiff, and the case was taken by the Insurance company to the supreme court of the United States. In the ordinary course of decisions there this case would not have been reached, possibly, for some years. The counsel for the insured then, after oorrespondence with the insurance company, agreed to take what was about two- thirds of the amount of the judgment, in round numbers. The proposition being aceepted, thereupon counsel did reeeive the sum of money pursuant to the compromise, to-wit, the two-thirds, and entered satisfaction of the judgment. �The question presented to the court is upon a motion to set aside that entry of satisfaction, first, because a connsel employed to prosecute a case has no right to compromise it. Such is the view of the supreme court of the state of Mis- souri; but the rulings are largely in conflict. But this case has another aspect : the original plaintiff entered into a spe- ��� �