Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/776

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES could not recover on the policies sued on. The Supreme Court of China found that " no premium was paid on the Western Company policy, the plaintiff and the Western Company have treated it as non-existing and no claim had been made under it," and gave judgment for the plaintiffThe defendant company appealed to the Privy Council, where the judgment of the court below is now affirmed, the Privy Council holding that the words in the Western Company policy as to the insured " having paid " the premium, are common form words or words of style for ex pressing the consideration for the company's engagement to insure, but that the premium not having in fact been paid, the company would not be estopped by their recital to the contrary if they were sued upon the policy in case of loss. The fact of the executed policy having been handed to the plaintiff cannot be treated as a waiver of the condition requiring payment of the premium. What was handed to the plaintiff was the instrument with this clause in it, and that was notice to him, and made it part of the contract, that there would be no liability until the premium was paid. It is not a question of conditional execution, but of the construction of what was executed. INSURANCE (Conditions). Mass. — The rights and duties of the mortgages of insured property as to conditions of the policy relative to proofs of loss and request for arbitration were con sidered in Union Institution for Savings v. Phoenix Insurance Company, 81 N. E. Rep. 994. The policy was issued to the mortgagor and contained a clause for payment of loss to the mortgagee as its interest might appear. There were also provisions requiring notice of loss forthwith and providing for arbitration. The court held that the primary duty under these stipulations rested upon the mortgagor but that on his failure to take action the mortgagee might proceed to do so; that no recovery could be had until compliance with these conditions by one or the other of the parties in interest, except that the clause providing for action " forthwith " did not apply to the mort gagee. INSURANCE (Criminal Law). Ga. — Anew and novel question in the law of insurance is con sidered in Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Crenshaw, 58 S. E. Rep. 628. Insured was alleged to have been shot and killed by the husband of his paramour while engaged in an attempt at adultery, or just after the commission of the offense. The policy provided that if death was "caused or superinduced at the hands of justice" the full amount of the policy could not be re covered. The Georgia Code provides that " death

735

by suicide or by the hands of justice, either punitive or preventive, releases the insurer." It was claimed that the law justifies the act of the husband in killing his wife's paramour under the circumstances here alleged, and that such a killing is in the administration of preventive justice. The court, however, declined to take that view of the matter, and said that the words "preventive justice " as used in the Code should be considered to cover only the taking of human life by an officer or some one having the rights of an officer. LOTTERIES (Guessing Contest). U. S. C. C. A., 6th Cir. — Whether a guessing contest as to the number of votes to be cast at a presidential election is a lottery was passed upon by in Waite v. Press Pub. Ass'n, 155 Fed. Rep. 58. The court comments on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497, 24 Sup. Ct. 789, 48 L. Ed. 1092, and several decisions of the state and federal courts, together with the rulings of three attorney-generals of the United States, and comes to the conclusion that the scheme involves such an element of chance as to be properly classed as a lottery. It says that "in so great a vote the necessary margin of chance would be so large that no element of skill or experience could operate to predict the result. While one skilled in national politics and con versant with existing conditions might make a closer estimate than one wholly ignorant, yet, after all, the successful persons in such a contest would be but makers of lucky guesses in which skill and judgment could play no effective part." RECEIVERS. Pa. — The question of the liabilities of bank officers assigning notes to the bank in lieu of bad debts, under an agreement for payment out of the profits of the business, was considered in State Bank of Pittsburg v. Kirk, 65 Atl. Rep. 932. Instead of profits being realized sufficient for payment of the obligations, the bank went into the hands of a receiver, who brought action thereon. Defendants set up want of con sideration as between themselves and the bank, and that the receiver had only the same right to maintain action as the bank had. The court said it was the first time the question had come up in that state, but that similar cases had arisen in New York, citing Hurd v. Kelly, 78 N. Y. 588, 34 Am. Rep. 567; Best v. Thiel, 79 N. Y. 15; Hun v. Salter, 92 N. Y. 651; Rector, etc., v. Teed, 120 N. Y. 383, 24 N. E. 1014; Sickles v. Herold, 149 N. Y. 332, 43 N. E. 852; that in Pennsylvania a receiver represented not only the insolvent corporation, but also the creditors, and that defendants could not now escape liability on the ground that there