Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/193

Rh circumstances the insurance companies will be obliged to pay the holders of their policies the weekly allowance provided for by the contract.

The law on this point is unsettled. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has recently decided, in the case of the merchant grocer just put, that the insured could not recover; and the Supreme Court of Maine, about a year later, in the case of the billiard-saloon keeper, reached an opposite conclusion.

An examination of the earlier cases is instructive, as they have exerted a considerable influence upon the present state of the law, although the language of the policies passed upon in them is materially different from the language of the policy in general use to-day.

The first case — at least the first of any importance — was Hooper v. Accidental Death Insurance Company, 5 H. & N. 545, decided in 1860.

In this case the policy of insurance against accident held by the plaintiff contained this clause, "that in case such accident shall not cause the death of the injured immediately, but shall cause any bodily injury to the injured of so serious a nature as wholly to disable him from following his usual business, occupation, or pursuits, the company will pay to the said insured," etc.

The injured party was a solicitor, registrar of a county court, and clerk to the Guardians of the Poor. He sprained his ankle so seriously that he was unable to put his foot to the ground, or to leave his room, for some weeks. During this time, however, he could give directions to his clerk, write letters, etc., while lying on his sofa; but he could not pass his accounts as registrar, or keep any of his engagements with his clients. The court held that the plaintiff could recover. Pollock, C. B., referring to the policy, said: —

"We must, therefore, endeavor to find out what is the true meaning of the language used in the policy. It may well be that the sense in- tended to be conveyed was, that if the person insured should be wholly disabled from carrying on his business as he usually carried it on, the company would be liable. That is the case here: the plaintiff might