Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/526

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES OF IMPORTANCE FROM THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM i Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Pub lishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 35 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.)

ACCIDENT INSURANCE. (DEATH — VISIBLE MARK. ON BODY) N. Y. SUP. CT. APP. Div. 4TH DEPT. The meaning of a clause commonly contained in accident insurance policies, but which has seldom been construed by the courts, is passed upon in Root i'. London Guarantee & Accident Company, 86 New York Supplement, 1055. An accident policy insured against bodily injuries sustained wholly and exclusively through external violence occasioned accidentally by visible means, and further provided that the insurance did not cover injuries of which there was no visible mark on the body. The insured fell from a bicycle and re ceived internal injuries, causing angina pectoris from which he died. There was no visible mark on the body of insured, and it was contended for this reason the case did not fall within the compass of the policy. There was, however, considerable evidence that after the injury, insured grew pale and weak and became emaciated. This paleness and emaciation it was held were visible marks upon the body within the meaning of the policy. Menneiley v. Empire Liability Assurance Co., 148 N. Y. 596, 43 N. E. 54; Mutual Accident Ass'n v. Barry, 131 U. S. 100, 9 Sup. Ct. 755 and Gale v. Mutual Aid & Accident Ass'n, 66 Hun. 600, 21 N.Y. S. 893, in which identical provisions have been held not to prevent recovery under some what similar circumstances are cited, and the statement in the first mentioned case that the purpose of the policy was to provide that a case of death or injury should not be regarded as within the policy, unless there was some external or physical evidence that indicated that it was accidental, is quoted with approval. BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS. (COMPETENCY or WITNESSES — TRIBUNAL OP THE ORDER CONCLUSIVENESS OF DECISION)

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT. The effect of a statutory enactment as to the competency of witnesses upon the proceedings of a tribunal, established by a beneficial association, is considered apparently for the first time in Michigan, in Dick v. Supreme Body of Interna tional Congress, 101 Northwestern Reporter 564. Michigan Comp. Laws § 1897, 10181, provides that no person authorized to practice medicine shall be allowed to disclose any information which he may acquire in attending a patient. A by-law

of a beneficial association provided for a hearing before the supreme board of trustees on death claims, the claimant to appear and give evidence to establish his claim, and further provided that on an appeal to the supreme body the decision of such body should be final and binding on every member and his beneficiaries. The statute, it is held, governs proceedings before the supreme tribunal of the order so that on a hearing, such as that provided for by the by-laws, evidence by physician as to facts which he learned while treating the deceased member is not admissible. A necessary corollary to this holding is the further decision that the determination of the supreme body, as to liability on a certificate of membership, is not conclusive where such body acted upon the physician's evidence admitted in violation of the statute. CARRIERS. (IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE — SPECIAL SHIPPING AGREEMENT — MODI FICATION BY BILL OF LADING) U. S. SUPREME COURT. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. American Trading Co., 25 Supreme Court Reporter, 84, is authority for the proposition that nonperformance of a special agreement by a carrier to transport a through shipment by the vessel of a connecting carrier sailing on a designated day, is not excused by the wrongful refusal of the deputy collector of the port to grant a clearance while the freight was on board, on the ground that it was contra band of war. It is to be noted, however, that the contract was not unlawful when made, nor ren dered unlawful by any subsequent legislation, and was made with the knowledge that difficulty might arise in the course of transportation because of the character of the freight. It was also held, that the mistaken action of the deputy revenue collector did not constitute a "restraint of princes, rulers, or people" within the meaning of that phrase in the bill of lading. Another question of considerable importance arose in this case upon the contention of the carrier that the special agreement for through shipment was modified by the subsequent receipt by the shipper of a bill of lading, containing a pro vision that the carrier was not to be liable for any loss not occurring on its own road. It, however, appeared that the special agreement was made between the authorized agents of the shipper and