United States Casualty Co. v. Charleston, S. C., Mining & Manufacturing Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina
In Equity. In the year 18!>8, and previously thereto, the United States Casualty Company was engaged in the business, among other things, of writing policies of insurance known as “employer’s liability policies,” their principal place of business being in the city of New York, and they were represented in the city of Richmond, Ya., by J. B. Moore & CO., their general agents at that place.
Read the full summary
In Equity. In the year 18!>8, and previously thereto, the United States Casualty Company was engaged in the business, among other things, of writing policies of insurance known as “employer’s liability policies,” their principal place of business being in the city of New York, and they were represented in the city of Richmond, Ya., by J. B. Moore & CO., their general agents at that place. At the same time the Virginia-Oarolina Chemical Company, engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers situated in various states, applied for and obtained from the United States Casualty Company policies of…
1Opinion of the CourtPritchard, Circuit Judge
(after stating tlie facts as above). . It is insisted by the complainant, as will appear from the statement of facts, that the policies issued by it to the defendant, with the memoranda and schedules thereto attached, constitute the contract between the’ parties; and that the pay rolls required to be furnished thereunder, in order that the actual premiums should be determined, should have included the amounts paid all employés of the company, without exception. In other words, that executive officers and office men should have been included in such pay rolls. And, as supplementary to this,…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Burgess v. SeligmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Scovill v. ThayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Brant v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Hammond v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Insurance Co. v. WolffSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Fresno Flume & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Brown v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, ConnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915