1857. 



NEW ENGLAND PARMER. 



157 



purpose ; but a thick solution of sheilac in alcol'.ol 

 is more neatly applied and is generally preferred, 

 although more expensive. Some good orchardists 

 prefer midsummer to winter, and it is probably the 

 best time, all things considered.— Counfn/ Gentle- 

 man. 



For the New England Farmer. 



FIRE INSURANCE. 



IMPOUTANT TO PEOl'LE ■WHOSE PROPERTY IS IN- 

 SURED AGAINST FIRE. 



People who get their buildings insured do it in 

 good faith that if they are burned they will be paid 

 the amount insured. Those whose property is in- 

 sured are not generally aware of the network of by- 

 laws in which they are entangled, but, when build- 

 ings are burned, how often is this fact brought to 

 light. Let a person examine the records of a mu- 

 tual fire insurance company, and he will be aston- 

 ished to find how large the proportion of the claims 

 presented for loss by fire is, which the directors 

 have voted not to pay. Now why is this so ? Be- 

 cause their bylaws are so framed that many do not 

 understand them ; and by some inaccuracy in the 

 application, or some neglect, or change of circum- 

 stances, a policy is rendered void- 

 It is the custom of insurance companies to send 

 out their agents (who are oftentimes directors of 

 the company) to get applications for insurance. 

 They will present the affairs of the company in 

 their most favorable light, and, when they shall 

 have prevailed on a person to get his buildings in- 

 sured, will write the application for the usual fee 

 In this case the applicant supposes the business is 

 done correctly ; that at any rate a policy issued on 

 an application made out by the company's agent 

 must be valid. His policy is issued, his premium 

 note is given and the per cent, required upon it is 

 paid, and the assured rests confident that in case 

 his buildings Ure burned his insurance will be paid 

 Now it happens that his buildings are burned, and 

 when his claim is presented for his loss, the officers 

 of the company are not slow in ascertaining that 

 his application is defective. This he is told, and 

 that his policy was void from the beginning, there- 

 fore he has no claim upon the company. In vain 

 he argues that if there is any fault in the applica- 

 tion it was the work of one of the company's offi- 

 cers and not his own ; for he is told that they are 

 not responsible for the acts of their officers. Not 

 !?atisfied with such logic, he prosecutes the compa- 

 ny, and at length has to sustain the loss, not only 

 of his buildings and the amount paid for insurance, 

 but he has to pay the heavy expenses of a lawsuit. 

 In another case, a person whose buildings are in- 

 sured, builds upon his house a small porch some 

 four feet wide. He takes his policy to the office 

 to see if any alteration in it is necessary. The sec- 

 retary remarks to him, the risk is not increased by 

 this addition, is it ? The assured replies, I do not 

 know that it is. "Well, then, says the Secretary, 

 there is no need of any alteration, your policy will 

 still be good. Well satisfied that all is right, he 

 returns home. Before his policy expires, his barn 

 is burned ; his claim is presented, and the direc- 

 tors vote not to pay it; he inquires for the reason 

 of so unexpected a refusal to pay his insurance. 

 He is told that the risk upon his buildings was in- 

 creased by the addition which he had built upon 

 his house. But, says the assured, your Secretary 



told me that my policy would still be good, not- 

 withstanding that. We are not responsible for 

 what he told you, is the reply. No, no, says the 

 Secretary, I told you that if the risk were not in- 

 creased your policy would still be good. The con- 

 versation that ensued need not be related here. 

 Enough to say, the company were prosecuted, and 

 the assured lost his case, notwithstanding it was 

 his I am that was burned, and not his house. 



Again, a man has his builduigs insured, and be- 

 fore the expiration of the policy he dies, and his 

 property descends to his heirs. They read the 

 policy, and find it insures the buildings to their 

 father and his heirs, and they conclude that the 

 policy is good to them. The buildings are burned 

 and when their claim is presented they are told 

 that the policy became void at the decease of their 

 father. But, say they, this policy insures the build- 

 ings to our father and his heirs. Yes, says one of 

 the officers of the company, but that means that if 

 the buildings had been burned in the lifetime of 

 your father, and he had not been paid the insur- 

 ance, his heirs could have collected it. 



In another case a man dies leaving his dwelling- 

 house to his widow during her lifetime. At the 

 expiration of a policy of insurance upon the house 

 at the death of the husband, the widow is pre- 

 vailed upon to have it insured again for the same 

 amount as before. Now the application did not 

 set forth her interest in the house, and it is insured 

 for more than three-fourths of the value of her life 

 estate in, and her policy is void so that she cannot 

 recover her insurance, notwithstanding she may 

 have paid as assessment to the full amount of her 

 premium note. 



We might go on and enumerate cases almost 

 without number in which policies for insurance 

 have been void from the beginning, or have become 

 so from some neglect or change of circumstances, 

 and it might not in any case have entered into the 

 mind of the assured that his policy was not good. 



Now there must be a great fault exsiting 

 somewhere, or these things would not be so. On 

 whom then shall the blame come ? Certainly not on 

 our courts of justice, for they are composed of men 

 of integrity and profound legal knowledge. They 

 are not legislators, but the judges of the law. It 

 is their province to expound the law according to 

 its literal meaning, although a great moral wrong 

 may be done by such an exposition of it. Some 

 one may say, will not a jury of twelve disinterested 

 persons be likely to decide a case justly ? There 

 are many cases that never come to a jury, but are 

 decided on certain points of law, and when a jury 

 give a verdict in a case, the jurors are under a sol- 

 emn oath to give it according to law and evidence, 

 and as the law is explained to them by the court. 

 There is no getting round the law to get at jus- 

 tice, but he that has got into the law must abide 

 the law. Hence it is that so many persons give up 

 their just rights rather than engage in Htigation. 

 Perhaps some may say, the fault is owing to the 

 ignorance or carelessness of those who get their 

 property insured. We admit that they may not 

 look so closely into the laws relating to insurance 

 as they ought to do, but they are generally the 

 honest, confiding part of the community, who deal 

 with others in good faith, and they are little aware 

 that they have bound themselves by laws which 

 are like so many traps set in their paths. Cases 

 have occurred, which, in certain places, have aroused 



