NEW YORK (STATE). 



607 



tons. The engineers made a survey for the 

 enlargement, following, or using, as far as 

 practicable, the line of the old canal, and in 

 many places building a portion of it new. or 

 on a more direct line than the old canal. The 

 work was immediately put under contract, 

 thousands of men were employed, and the 

 Legislature of 1838 authorized the commis- 

 sioners of the canal fund to borrow $4,000,000 

 to carry on the work. The canal commission- 

 ers were directed to prepare and put under 

 contract, with as little delay as possible, such 

 portions of the work as would complete the 

 entire enlargement. The work progressed 

 rapidly until 1842, when what is known as the 

 " stop law " was enacted, suspending further 

 expense on public works. The canal remained 

 in an unfinished condition for five years fol- 

 lowing, until 1847, when the Legislature made 

 an appropriation to continue the work. Other 

 annual appropriations were mad,e op to 1862, 

 when the enlargement was completed. 



Insurance. The latest reports of the insur- 

 ance department show that the aggregate as- 

 sets of the fire and fire marine companies of 

 this country doing business in the State of 

 New York is $163,041,841.32, classified as fol- 

 Imv : Now York joint-stock companies, $60,- 

 929,147.70 ; joint-stock companies of other 

 States, $99,645,876.33; New York mutuals, 

 $1,961,934.53 ; mutuals of other States, $504,- 

 882.76. Compared with 1886, these figures 

 show an aggregate decrease of $1,372,808.66. 

 Excepting scrip and capital, their liabilities 

 are: New York joint-stock companies, $24,- 

 945,447.25 ; other State joint-stock compa- 

 nies, $35,573,822.53; New York mutuals, 

 $668,994.39; other State mutuals, 286,646.19; 

 total, $61,474.910.36, an increase of $3,159,- 

 661.65. The total amount of scrip liabilities 

 is $701,017, and of capital, $60,542,620. The 

 fire premiums received were $18,425,955.69; 

 fire losses paid, $13.419,011.99; fire losses in- 

 curred, $13,937,470.98. The estimated amount 

 of expense for the transaction of this business 

 is $5,527.786.72, which, if added to the in- 

 curred losses, make a total of 19,465,257.70; 

 showing, as compared with the premium re- 

 ceipts, an apparent loss of $1,039,302.01. At 

 the close of 1887 the marine and fire insurance 

 companies doing business in the State of New 

 York were possessed of $227,702,323 of ad- 

 mitted assets, not including assets held abroad 

 or premium notes of mutual companies, a loss 

 of $146,2-22 as compared with 1886. The lia- 

 bilities of these companies, excepting scrip and 

 capital, were $90,263.202, an increase of $4,- 

 861,148 over the return of the preceding year. 

 The income was $444,506 and the expendi- 

 tures were $1 03,957,598. an increase, as com- 

 pared with 1886, of $1,504,841 in income and 

 $5,534,517 in expenditures. The whole num- 

 ber of companies reporting in 1887 was 182, 

 being four less than in 1886. In the last an- 

 nual report there were pointed out some of the 

 objectionable features of the statute, which 



provides for licensing agents to do fire-insur- 

 ance business in this State, through unadmitted 

 companies of other States or countries. The 

 experience of one more year in observing its 

 practical operation confirms the impression, 

 on the part of the insurance department, that 

 the incorporating of this act into the insurance 

 laws of the State, makes them, in a very mate- 

 rial respect, anomalous, illogical, inconsistent, 

 and radically bad. The theory on which the 

 law was enacted, that the insurance thus au- 

 thorized could be kept strictly within the limit 

 of "surplus line" in other words, could he 

 confined to such insurance only as could not be 

 obtained from duly authorized companies has 

 proved fallacious, and the superintendent is 

 disposed to think that most of the insurance 

 written under the provisions of this statute 

 could have been obtained in duly authorized 

 companies if the policy-holders had made rea- 

 sonably diligent efforts to obtain it, which, 

 however, the statute does not require them to 

 make. He thinks the statute ought to be re- 

 pealed, and that the penal provisions of the 

 statutes enacted with special reference to the 

 prevention of unauthorized fire insurance need 

 some material amendments to give them wider 

 scope and practical effect. 



In March, 1888, an important decision was 

 made in regard to insurance law in the State 

 of New York. It was on an appeal taken by 

 defendant from an order of the Supreme 

 Court, sustaining plaintiffs exceptions, taken 

 at the trial in the Monroe circuit, and ordered 

 to be heard in the first instance at General 

 Term and directing a new trial. The trial jus- 

 tice had directed a verdict for the defendant. 

 The property insured was a merchant's stock 

 of goods in Phelps, Ontario Co., and it was 

 destroyed by fire May 3, 1884. The policy was 

 for $1,500, and plaintiff asserted a loss value 

 of over $3,000. The answer was that plaintiff 

 had effected subsequent insurance without noti- 

 fying defendant's agent, in violation of the 

 terms of his policy. The trial justice held that 

 this vitiated the policy, and directed a verdict 

 for defendant, to which ruling plaintiff ex- 

 cepted. On the hearing of the exceptions at 

 the General Term the Supreme Court held that 

 the clause in the policy reading : " If the assured 

 shall have, or shall hereafter make, any other 

 insurance on the property hereby assured, or 

 on any part thereof, without the consent of 

 the company written thereon, then the policy 

 shall be void," is a part of a contract that re- 

 quires the written consent of the assured to 

 render valid and obligatory, and that, as no 

 written indorsement to that effect appears on 

 the policy the clause is of no binding effect. It 

 was, therefore, held that the question of fact 

 for a jury to pass upon was whether the de- 

 fendant's agent had or had not orally consented 

 to the subsequent insurance. The defendant, 

 instead of going back to the circuit for a new 

 trial, took a direct appeal to the court of last 

 resort, to have the matter fully and finally de- 



