NOTES.
A curious point of law, bearing upon the responsibility of insurance companies, has just been decided in the Paris law courts (Fifth Chamber of the Civil Tribunal of the Seine), at the suit of the Countess Fitz-James v. The Union Fire Insurance Company, of Paris, by which it is ruled that insurance companies must indemnify all losses sustained by an assured caused by fire, even in cases where no destruction of premises has been caused by conflagration. The Countess Fitz-James insured against fire, in the above company, all her furniture and effects for 558,000 francs; and in her policy, under Art. 7, were mentioned her jewels, among which figured specially a pair of earrings, composed of fine pearls, valued at 18,000 francs. On April 17, 1887, one of these earrings, which had been placed on the mantelpiece, was accidentally knocked down by the countess and fell into the fire, where it was consumed, not with standing every effort made to save the jewel. Expert jewellers were called in by both parties to estimate the intrinsic value of the property destroyed, and 9,000 francs was stated to be the amount, less sixty francs for molten gold rescued from the ashes. The insurance company refused to pay for the. burnt pearl on the ground that there was no conflagration, that the fire which consumed the object was an ordinary fire; in other words, that there was no fire, and that the company was not responsible where combustion had only occurred by the ordinary use of a grate for heating purposes. The court, however, rejected this, and ruled that "the word 'fire,' in matters of assurance, applied to every accident, however unimportant such accident may be, so long as it is caused by the action of fire." It was therefore ordered that the Union Company should pay to the Countess Fitz-James the value of the jewel, less that of the gold recovered; namely, 8,940 francs and costs.—Irish Law Times
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." The above words, taken from a law book which we fear is but rarely referred to by American lawyers, were written long before the time when a certain member of the St. Louis Bar arrived at a practical solution of the difficulty by taking a fee from both parties to a suit. We learn from an English scientific publication that the same solution has recently been re-discovered, so to speak, by three of the most eminent English barristers,—Sir Richard Webster, Attorney-General, Mr. Ashton, and Mr. Moulton,—though under circumstances which absolve them from all suspicion of a guilty purpose. All three of them had accepted retainers from the Brush Electric Light Company, the exploiters in England of the patents of the American inventor whose name they bear, in a threatened suit by the Edison-Swan Electric Company. The latter company, however, had the sagacity to bring suit, not against the Brush company, but against one of their customers, and tendered retainers to the same eminent barristers, which were accepted, no doubt, in ignorance of the real nature of the controversy. The Brush company, naturally, hastened to the aid of their customer, and assumed the defence of the suit in which the validity of their patents was directly involved, and found to their consternation that the services of these leaders of the bar had been cunningly filched from them by the adversary. The learned gentlemen were hardly less disturbed at finding themselves called upon to plead both sides of the case, like the Lord Chancellor in the opera of "Iolanthe." The final outcome was their appearance for the Edison-Swan Company, and their wisdom seems to have been vindicated by the establishment of the priority of the Edison-Swan patents. This will furnish the basis for a suit for damages for infringement against the Brush people, and the interesting question arises as to which side of this suit will be argued by the successful counsel. Will they hate (of course in a strictly legal way) the Brush people, and love the Edison-Swan people; or will they hold to Brush and despise Edison?
The University of Michigan has conferred the degree of LL.D. upon Hon. Albert H. Horton, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of Kansas. Judge Horton is a graduate of the university, which has honored him as well as itself by this recognition of his eminent ability.
The liberty of the press in this country was not always what it is now. The General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay not only maintained a censorship by "overseers" appointed for the
