*1 52
bаtable tion appellant the one Whitfield v. perusal of this record. Therefore which the alien viewable’by The most we think that can rooming stantial evidence ager dence Louis not port 198 U. finding evidence such fact Tun v. 56 L. Ed. ings question dence to every opportunity he had counsel to S. [5] Department 135; Hughes F.(2d) 417. lokumsky v. United 52 L. 198 U. S. Jung L. [3, Gegiow Uhl, 239 U. Christy Svarney v. United States trines have heen announced (2d) Ungar cross-examine 4] Ed. The record here discloses Department of Labor province Immigration F. absent. As we 68 L. whether order entered fully U. S. questionеd 32 Ct. that 515. See v. Nash police force Ed. being Edsell, procedure 114; one. question, S. v. v. involved, if house support presented at the show he Whether charge is a v. Seaman notified of Ed. substantial evidence v. States, 208 finding. S. Ct. Leong Don Department house of courts will not review the view this Hanges, Ng or not was the actual of this court absent Tang Tod, That there is substantial evi 25 S. Ct. 25 Ct. 221; 42 S. Labor. The alien was court. Whitfield C. C. Eung admits he conducted as presented Inspector. it; viz.: Was the United States v. S. United States before thereon were unfair. 56 L. Ed. 268 U. S. U. (C. A.) there Tun v. evidence testified that appellant, but he the result of the A there Ng (C. Ct. witnesses fraud and mistake A. 199. on U. prostitution case, it is reduced to secure 66 L. question Ho C. (C. C. reputation S. member of the St. of Labor 644, 49 L. Ed. Euug charge against C. general S. the officials of is apparant is substantial evi 3, 36 S. based v..White, Edsell, 223 hearing A.) (C. at the 8, 28 is that the 49 L. Ed. him, 606; nothing unfair Indeed, this witnesses, and interfere 32 S. 149, 44 A.) 5 to sustain Ho presented (C. C. C. F.(2d) L. Ed. decision claimed 938; Tang v. Ju subject, substantial on upon sub F.(2d) S. Ct. 138 C. Ed. this court a house Chin v. it is not A.) hearing? Ct. Ju law, Hanges, Ct. from a hearing 259 U. F.(2d) mana White, Measured a de fairly A.) S. ques place given U. 2, 60 find Toy, sup Yow Toy, him, 938; fact does 639; be re 80; Bi Ct. F. S. is ing advised insured that will constitute does by tice liable under 2. Insurance deny of tice tice er ages is affirmed. agement substantial evidence refrain 1. cisions of the courts heretofore referred gave to that appellant The MEYERS dence from tice company, ed in violation of such defense. It should tice to company, having by employee bility without notice to insured sider waive bility insured, company, having (Circuit Insurance Labor that he employees, policy, Insurance Where Where Where to insured writ notified not be are brought evidence is so they to base itself ultimately established, and insured aft- liability. order of the trial court estop of a employer of habeas insurer, appellant part waiver Court brought establishing to recover liability insurance by all carried on had covered having prostitution. that'injured employee was under injured employee, some of the inmates of proved liable, policy, it not keeps defense. makes takes house <@=388(5) Liability <@=388(5) Liability <@=388(5) Liability employer’s liability setting knowledge that it would disclaim March a fair injured employee was covered the tests undertaken defense then' such defense No. 6988. law, conducted finding hy injured employee insurance taken is such control after control of action Appeals, it does not consider nauseatingly corpus CO.* connected with insured, 6, 1926.) there is held not prostitution facts out prostitution. objection — hearing. — — if such control of action for employer for thereby estopped There of their any part liability if certain ground showing defense in company, on no- promptly Eighth presented upon policy, company, the various in violation of them proved to defense of deny is correct, does disclaim lia- under terms Department have vile that discharging CASUALTY There was giving giving direct evi- said house giving there and insurance insurance employee insurance in action earnings. Circuit. the man- does not employ- liability. liability, not con- notifies waived on be- having action itself dam- no- no- no- lia- no- to, we * Rehearing July 9, 1925. denied
(cid:127)as are
District
terial
sulting
ber
ness described in the schеdule.
half
1921, he
hereby agrees:
brief),
less, brought against
predicated.
sured
in the policy
reason of the
BURGH,
a fact
count
H.
facture
fense
firmed.
against Continental
city
corporation
Missouri; Charles
suit
appellant.
decree
ployees
to an action
on such
Continental
(M.
indemnity insurance, brought William
law
“(B)
“(C) To
“
Before
PHILLIPS,
“Period of
“The
Appeal from
William
George T.
Suit
2, 1921,
ways
premises
(A) To
E.
accidents
exempting
therefrom,
described
the assured
dismissing
condition,
for
plaintiff was
of wooden boxes
Judge.
suit
by William
Watts,
St.
specifiс performance
bodily injuries, including
purchased from the
To make
conduct
immediately adjacent
Continental
policy applies.
insurance on which this
STONE and
appellee.
to November
account of such
R.
(hereinafter
defend
Louis,
the assured for
period
to assert
inquiry
(hereinafter called
operation
loss from
described
Priest,
assured,
for
reported
law, plaintiff
Gentry,
District
of St.
defense to
above,
portions
accidentally
Judges, and
the Eastern District
Mo,
H.
thorough investigation
the assured to
Casualty Company,
read as follows:
engaged in the manu-
*2
MEYERS v.
of
shall be
District
bill
Davis, Judge.
the name and
while within or
suits,
to recover on
any employee
Company. Erom
Casualty Company
liability under
unless
Louis,
Meyers against
St.
of St.
Judge. This
called
YAN
and crates
On November
herein named
waive
liability imposed
employee’s
the schedule or
Louis,
even if
damages
bodily
defendant the
trade
appeals.
suffered with-
from Novem-
Court
Mo., on
PHILLIPS,
company
defendant).
thereto,
VALKEN-
Louis,
plaintiff)
prejudice
death re-
Mo., for
* * *
contract
ground
recovеr
suit
or em-
of
in
on ac-
as de-
it was
busi-
is.
ma-
Mo.
Af-
be
as-
S’. (2d)
defendant.
to delivered the same to the of
of
a
a
a
perintendent
tion in
prohibited by the statutes of-the state of Mis-
the latter furnished
served
ment
Granite
cate
proximate
issue.
ment
souri.
On
place in
for
dition
ond cause of
time of the
tion.
by any
in
damages on
shall elect
court of the
alleged, among
the assured
the course of
aller’s
a circular saw driven
count
On
aller suffered
or
company.
settlement of
ployed in
any
or
duct of
[*]
#
pany,
way
failing
St. Louis.
At thе time
suit
Theodore
“7. No action
saw,
“3. This
claims,
November
“2. The
«
á1
company
November
indicating
that such
negligent
expense
respecting
to contest
of
the assured
with a summons and
petition contained two causes
»
Í»
3 s
On
without the written
recovery money
any legal proceedings.
in
the matters set
wit,
plaintiff to work at such
which to
City,
injuries
his
to instruct him how to use the
cause
failing
November
danger
Except
his
company
account of such
in full satisfaction
.
accident,
* *
to effect
first cause of
action Hadaller
of the bоard
”*
the assured after
negligence was
city of St. Louis to recover
Hadaller
16, 1922,
On
4'
his
in
Ill.,
manufacturing
plaintiff employed Hadaller,
other
or
shall be maintained
any negotiations for
claim or suit or
failing
::: *
September 23,1922,
shall not interfere
work,
was under
incident
his
this
settle
death
assured
furnished a
furnish
shall have
suit. He
17,1922, plaintiff
requested
and that
things,
injuries.
not cover loss on
or settle
settlement
mechanical
Hadaller
caused -or suffered
any
law as to
L.
copy
to his
actually paid by
action,
authority
failing
properly guard
injuries.
shall not incur
аlleged,
with a certifi
his first cause
Erohardt,
operating,
6 ® ®
establishment
of
years,
education at
the exclusive
by plaintiff,
immediately
unless it be
trial of the
aof
°
In his
in
direct
work,
any
said suits
Hadaller
saw was
employ-
the
® *
power.
in
circuit
in ad-
of ac-
of
at the
judg
warn
Had-
Had-
claim
peti-
com
safe
saw,
con
age.
sec-
any
su
ac
in
FEDERAL
meantime,
controversy
until such
according
“In the
to the defendant to the effect
the serv-
tenders
education,
settled,
such board of
records of
.the
of its
ice
February
Hadaller was born
and its
рetition
14, 1922,
November
Hadaller filed
*3
you
the
that the
up
without
to
time
city of St. Louis
in the circuit court of the
age
tender-
question
is
In so
litem,
determined.
ad
appointment
guardian
the
department
ing you
of its claim
the services
“fourteen
setting up
therein that
distinctly
legal department,
it must
age.
be
years of
This
and eleven-twelfths”
company does
understood that the insurance
mother, Maria
petition was sworn to
his
any
provisions of
of the
thereby waive
Hadaller.
you are not
to. If
the
above referred
Gentry,
Watts
On December
сlaim de-
willing
accept
services of the
the
defendant,
an answer
for the
filed
in-
partment
the law
of the
in
a motion to elect
behalf
making
company during
of such
surance
the
7, 1922,
in
On December
the Hadaller ease.
stated,
on the terms herein
then
attorneys,
defendant, by
addressed
notify
not want
please
once,
us
dowe
following
at
plaintiff
to the
and forwarded
any
put
waiving
o'f
into the
be
letter:
policy.”
of the
are
for the Continental
“We
in
Plaintiff received the
letter
due
above
Casualty Company
Chicagо,
with which
reply thereto.
mail,
course of
but made no
you carry
covering
op-
liability policy
plaintiff called at the
22, 1922,
On December
factory
city.
boy
your
in
A
eration of
this
Gentry, attorneys for the
office of
&Watts
injured
your plant
named Hadaller was
in
defendant,
discussed with Wil-
and there
day
25th
and has
September,
let-
the contents of the
Gentry
liam R.
damages
in-
to recover
for such
suit
subject
nonliability of
ter and the
juries.
slight
in
name
There is a
error
age
was under the
if Hadaller
error
the defendant
you,
under which
has sued
but that
he
injured.
time hе was
Gen-
easily
years
slight
is so
that
can
be
at
corrected
try
plaintiff
if it
be
advised
leave of court.
years
termined that Hadaller was under
Company
“The Continental Casualty
has
injury,
defend-
age
at
time
called our attention to the fact that a contro-
and would de-
ant would
age
boy
versy exists as to the exact
of this
go
of the ac-
cline to
the defense
injury.
at
time of
It is
his
claimed
Gentry that, should
Plaintiff
tion.
stated
boy
years
under 16
that he was
with the
decide not to
defendant
continue
superintendent
A
from the
age,
says
of Hаdaller’s
City, 111.,
board of education at Granite
account
Gentry
employ
to continue
board show
the would want to
that the records of the
that
Gentry ad-
for him.
boy
February 3,
of the ease
was born on
1906. If that
the defense
glad to do
boy
plaintiff
so,
he would be
correct,
years
was
record
over
vised
injured.
age
plain-
If the
conflict between
when he
was some
unless there
in event of
correct,
defendant,
then
was em-
tiff’s
contention
insur-
for the defend-
ployed contrary
conflict,
since the
counsel
you
company
provides
it.
ance
he would have
ant,
April 10, 1924,
shall not
liable for
substance that it
in
by you
employed
injury
trial. The
showed
on for
evidence
came
clusively
relating
age
of minors
Hadaller was under
contrary to the law
state,
injured.
may
in
in-
After
age
the time he
who
at
trial,
completed
if it is
not be liable
had been
at
will
the evidence
surance
ease,
boy
argument
was un-
at
prior
the trial
established
through
counsel, addressed
you.
defendant,
lawfully employed
following
facts,
“In
and delivered to
view of-these
the Continental
Company, through us, as
letter:
Casualty
its at-
“April
torneys, hereby
you that,
notifies
if investi-
George Hadaller, by Next
Theodore
gation
boy
discloses
fact
“In
re
Meyers, Doing
H.
Friend,
Wm.
you
injury
employed by
at
time of his
Sterling Box Co.
as
age,
the law of
state
Business
violation of
plaintiff this
offered
his
case is
covered
“Evidence
clearly
having
established
morning
issued to
Continental
insurance
the first
time that
Company,
will contradiction
Hadaller,
George
was un-
pay
judgment
Theodore
plaintiff,
decline to
rendered
when he
time
against you
plaintiff.
favor оf
der policy”
trary
now
machine
you
state the said Theodore
much as
finish the trial.
engaged
this time and
rendered
taken
der its
who could
Hadaller.
against you on account of such
isfy
Theodore
ment for
expens.es incurred in the ease
ployed new
case,
was valuable as
ment;
plaintiff
this suit.
he had
Hadaller
loss
for himself
execution
pelled
bond,
funds
case.
judgment,
dollars the
that out of it he
such execution
Hadaller ease
cern,”
pay any judgment that
course,
alleged
Hadaller obtained
irreparably
“Thе Continental
present
been
extent of
the court
city
of his
hereby
a motion for
“furnish
unless
care
so as
with which
is now
They
May 5, 1924,
that he
it had
exceeded
known as a
of St.
resulting
the Continental
sustained
in the
$9,000 was
levy
accepted
George Hadaller, and will decline
pay
properly
“take
that his
judgment,
As a basis for
business,
trial,
and his
amount
finally
adequate remedy
filed motion for a new
could not
by you
going
ordered a remittitur for
many
entitled
$15,000.
its
agreed
throughout
an
issued;
appeal
operation
your factory,
damaged in
had been
handling
Louis,
But,
a
execution
a
“by many
appeal
him would
by
disclaims
unable to
going
take hold
on in the circuit
a
due course
family”;
attorney’s
manufacturing
individually.”
jointer,
thousands
pay
which,
entered.
able “to make a
new
v. MEYERS said Theodore
a verdict
procure
to execution
remittitur,
division No.
George Hadaller
carried
do, “plaintiff
Plaintiff
the Hadaller
Casualty Company
of said ease
bond
of”
concern
judgment”;
trial
thereon,
for their
overruled;
protect plaintiff
equitable relief,
should be com-
this is'to
his business to
of the еase and
statutes
will
give
Company will,
fees
thousands of
“result
completion
present
other counsel
of dollars in
*4
injuries
levy
therein,
would have
filed
by you for
commenced not
going
have
judgment;
him in the had waived
law;
an
only,
that con-
and other erenee to
rendered
as in
business dice to an action at
court of
on such estopped
services
George
$6,000.
had no
to said
appeal
of this
driven
in the
advise
living
up to ment.
12F.(2d)
judg-
judg-
to be
trial, policy
inas-
trial,
such
hav-
that paragraph
'sat-
em-
un-
in -which
remedy
prove
which has issued
ferring
knowledge
waived
its decree
tively,
that his
has been waived
money
ther takes
tiff in his brief said: “Unless this
ant
violation of law. Such fact was a
trol
Hadaller was on account of
employees,
employer
that he was under 16
of his
denying
ployee
defenses:
ant waived
appellant
eration of a
excess of
defense to
assuming
on the first and third
[1,
'
law on account of
It
2]
First,
The'
To
To
The second and third
Second,
Third,
Hadaller while
terms
second
filed its
age
entitled
Hadaller action after
damages brought by
paragraphs
ease,
Where
is clear that
this answer
in satisfaction of
plaintiff’s
laws of the state of
trial
to such
was under the
its
itself from
dominion,
employment
refusing
that the
it set
from loss
the defense of the action after
dismissing
control and
law;
defense,
plaintiff’s
we
that Hadaller at
numbered 3 of
the “no
answer,
court held that
secure
policy quoted
sum that he
will
relief
provision
plaintiff
entitled to
bill of
the terms
numbered 3 and
to continue the defense of
consider it first.
and
employed by
action”
that the defendant had
driven saw
law, basing
in equity,
grounds
plаintiff’s liability
action,
established,
dominion
plaintiff
which it
in an
accident,
expressly
defenses were based
bill without
had not
complaint,
casualty
counsel
recovery.”
might
had an
provision
verdict,
keeps
Missouri; and,
above.
Hadaller
action at law.”
unless defend-
suffered
of defense.
knowledge
filed
quoted
set
and entered
its
time of
and that it
at
same. Re-
years,
is decisive
be able
of law
forbidden
paid
an action
Hadaller
complete
adequate
imposed
received
the time
decision
a
defend-
respec-
preju-
plain-
reply,
Since
judg-
three
con
ref:
op-
an
ei
REPORTER,
2d SERIES
giving
sea
Cereal Co. v. London Guarantee & Accident
(C.
that it
Co.
7)
sonable notice
C. A.
C. C. A.
P.
policy, it is 24.
consider itself liable under the
See also Tozer v. Ocean
&
Accident
liability. Toz
thereby
deny
Corporation, supra,
Guarantee
Minn.
Corpora 103
er v. Ocean Accident &
N.
Guarantee
W. at
and 99
Minn.
N.
478, 103 N. W.
tion, Ltd.,
411; Royle
Fidelity
94 Minn.
W. at
Mining Co. v.
410; Empire
Casualty Co.,
99 Minn.
State supra,
App. 185,.
109 N. W.
161 Mo.
(C. A.
Surety
C.
(N.
Co. v. Pac. Nat. Lbr. Co.
34 L.
notes,
R. A.
410; Royle S.)
9)
C.
1912D, 910,
F.
C.
Ann. Cas.
C. J.
Casualty Co.,
p.
Mining Co.
Mo.
App.
case,
allegatiоns
Mo.
103 W.
the instant
App.
untrue,
Humes Construc
to Hadaller’s
had been
and he
W.
Casualty Co., 32
Philadelphia
upon any
tion Co. v.
been entitled to recover
one
1, Ann.
1912D,
grounds
alleged
negligence
R. I.
79 A.
Cas.
more
Liability
Corporation Employers’
Assur.
his first cause of
have
(C.
7)
duty
C. A.
been
Chicago
& M. & C. Co.
C.
defendant under the
Rieger
Lon
pay
141 P.
73 C. A.
defend the Hadaller suit and to
resulting
202 Mo.
& Accident
loss
don Guarantee
account
*5
1912D, The
920;
215
Ann. Cas.
certificate shown to
at the time
note.
employed
the
ob-
by
however,
liability insurance tained
defendant after the Hadaller
the
the
Where,
employ action was commenced
Hadal-
company, upon notice to it that the
indicated that
liability
employee
er’s
not be cov
ler
was more than sixteen
in
by
policy, .promptly notifies the
injured.
hand,,
ered
On the other
time
alleged
that if
occurred-
sured
certain
appointment
petition Hadaller for the
policy does not cover loss on account
petition in
litem and his
guardian
ad
if
the occurrence of such
damages indicated that he
action for
ultimately
facts is
it
established
will dis
time he was in-
under 16
claim
under the
that the
jured.
as-
Clearly
controversy
there was a
by
un
defense of the action
is not to be
it
to Hadaller’s
When the summons
provisions
derstood
waiver of
were served
petition in the Hadaller suit
insured, after such no
and the
in-
them to
upon plaintiff
delivered
objection to
defense of
tice, makes no
that-
surance
and took the
insurer,
the action
then such defense it
action.
should defend the
does not constitute a waiver
insurer
Mason-Henry
In
Press v. Ætna Life
and does not
supra, the court said:
Co.,
surance
it from
estop
thеm an action
his claim
“When the
basing
insured
recover
Mann
for
the insured
Liability
Employers’
Corpo
et al.
Assur.
grounds
v.
which were covered
on various
794;
143
ration,
insurance,
123 Minn.
N. W.
Ma
policy of
Press Ætna
211
son-Henry
Co.,
v.
Life Ins.
law which was not cov-
alleged
violation
826;
489, 105 N. E.
be-
thereby,
N. Y.
Buffalo Steel Co.
the insurer had
choice
ered
App.
pre-
which would
Co.,
v. Ætna
Ins.
Div.
Life
tween two courses of
215 N. Y.
109 N. E.
which has-
141 N.
on its
Y.
the limitation
serve
Laundry
simply
Travelers’
1067;
regard
Holland
v.
Ins.
to. It could
been referred
insured
Co.,
App.
152 N. Y. S.
Div.
of law the
of violation
1071;
taking
its
Y.
117 N.
United Waste
to defеnd
N.
refuse
liability, if
Maryland
Co.,
Mfg.
Casualtv
sole
Co. v.
chances
established,
539, 148
Y.
for which
Rep.
Misc.
N.
any, would
Div;
hand,
906; Sargent
On the other
be liable.
N. Y. S.
would not
ac-
proceed
Ins.
with the defense
Mfg.
Co.,
Co.
Travelers’
Mich. could
v.
notice
understanding with or
(N. S.)
under an
130 N. W.
L. R.
tion
express
implied,
or
Hospital
Fidelity
insured,
491; Ford
& Casual
to the
fault,
allegations against all
Co.,
W.
would defend
ty
106 Neb.
N.
come out
Maryland
that, if in the end it should
Mfg.
Edgefield
Co. v.
the one of
only allegation
Casualty Co.,
73, 58 S. E.
Londonthe
sustained
78 S. C.
rights
pre-
Siwy, 35
its
& Accident Co. v.
violation
Gu arantee
liable.
not be
servеd and it should
Joseph
66 N. E.
Gor
App. 340,
Ind.
-
hardly
expected that
Bonding &
“It could
Massachusetts
Ins.
Inc., v.
don,
As-
first course.
respondent would take the
128 E.
American
N. Y.
N.
Co.,
.
its claim
ments
if
provision of
foregoing defendant
tiff
vised
ed
ed to the defense of
that, until
fense of
cept
ployed in
that it would not be
vised
stood that
laid down
with reference to
rights
tention of the insured the
the services of its
it could
violation
be the
agreement of the
to do
proceeding
would be
not intend waive those
for attention.’
did. At
matter of
legation of fault
ering this
has been
course,
compel the
hiring the
circumstances,
ed,
gence
ent
fense
and of
the outset
[3]
any attorneys
insured,
did
fact,
injured,
it
The
policy, and
policy.
was to
placed
him
were
an express,
notify it
there
ease
each. But I
tendered
itself
do
of law
subject.-
if
it would disclaim
stated, various
safety
exemption
services on the
in so
boy,
it should be
that was
alleged
Hadaller’s
'this
was method which it
objection,
fairly
very
and
defence
for the defendant. His state
clearly
It
the New York
”
preserve
I
the defense
and that therеfore
and that if such
think
bound
doing
further notified
that,
kind above
injury
case
was untrue. Under
outset it called to
were
All it could was bound
once,
position
itself and
which-
acted
think that the
within the
provision
attorneys
liable Hadaller was by
necessary
not violated the
of the action.
MEYERS
in the
would
that the
if such
condition,
reasonably
in such manner
and assert
at least an
age was
for the
to
the benefit of both
Hadaller action
as it
above
make
rights
grounds of
not willing
promptly.
undertake
distinctly
impliedly
were covered
allegation
terms
an employee
and
if
charge,
of having waiv
liability
suggested
not
court.
not
of fairness
insisted
did not want
proved
instant
requirements
'
insurer, as
In all of
the time
referred
notified
services of
defendant,
stated,
waive the
fall.
proved
determin
ease.
assert
respond- defense
proceed-
implied,
but ad
all that
explicit
assent contrary
the de-
This it
under
law in defendant
It
Plain
rights
under
negli- assent to the conditions
IS F.(Sd)
to be
to
could
sueh
thus
cov-
ease
him
ad-
de
ac
at- Co. v.
Of
to,
al-
us
to
a withdrawn
have waived
was not within
waive the
provision аnd the
fenses set
ferred
it
suit.
policy.”
right
waive such
policy Hadaller was
said:
tice to the
its claim
loss
them
v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee
full
lishment of
tion
prevented
Assur.
tee & Accident
furnishing
fendant. He
*6
supra;
the benefit of
cases the insurer
sonable
of
cumstances,
accepted the services of counsel
so
Guarantee Accident
services were
action could not
admitted
believe
law at the
It is
its actions
The
We
“When the
Counsel
satisfied
following
from the
that he
information of the
Co.,
personally
to
to,
defense of an action
Corporation
of the Hadaller аction.
notice
Fairbanks
deeree is
unnecessary
conclude
disclaim
person
liability, in the event
to law
(Italics
supra; Rieger v.
that it admitted
represent him in the
liability.
objection,
without
facts which would exelude
indicated his desire
note, 34 L. R. A.
time he was
without
tendered.
led
their
co-operated
insurer undertakes the control
eases:
to the insured that it
the defendant.
services of its
employing other
have the
664.- In each of the above
action of the defendant
defendant.
Casualty Co.,
proceeded
objection
possibly have
ours.)
liability, and
that defendant
affirmed.
Canning
their
services.
terms
of its
In
defense
supra;
it will be deemed to
Employers’
Chicago & B. M. C.
it
Co.,
defend the Hadaller
Royle
He
cite
injured.
reservation or no-
of the
services
attorneys for the
reservation of the
did
upon which
character
with
of the
supra,
with the
London
brought by
154 Mo.
Co. v.
Under the cir-
Royle Mining
insured, with
attorneys and
not
supra; Tozer
Mining Co. v.
the other de-
(N. S.)
-without sea-
Corporation,
Hadaller ac-
counsel. He
He was
led
them in the
He received
believe
assеrt sueh
apparently
rely upon
should be
above
under the
intend to
Liability
did not
Guaran-
liability
London
present
defense
employ
of the
estab-
court
492.
sueh
and
re-
<S=>78(2)
and minerals
Mines
STONE,
Judge (concurring).
—Failure
requiring
lessee under oil
drilled
wells
lease
wish to
concurring
opinion,
I
requirements
such cove-
to meet
emphasize
because, as stated
that I do so
abandonment,
nants,
ter-
as to constitute
so
therein, plaintiff
consented
rights
minates all
under
lease.
fifty-year
of the defend-
the action
oil and
of lessee
Failure
under
gas mining
requirements of cove-
lease to meet
set
the conditions
forth
ant
well and continue
until
nants
commence
letter of December
wells,
completion, and to commence additional
per-
control of this
of exclusive
as
abandon-
such facts
would constitute
under
ment,
rights
injury
very great
im-
litigation
sonal
was of
all
under lease.
terminate
company.
portance
both
and to the
<@=^5 Finding that as-
minerals
3. Mines and
—
If
to assume the
gas
signees
abandoned
oil and
lease had
rights
lease,
(within
policy) it was
termi-
meaning
all
thereunder
and that
subsequent
lessees,
those of
nated as
importance
great
to it
it should
by Depart-
issued
supported
interest
lease
as to
litigation
power
to settle
trol this
Interior,
evi-
held
ment
way.
conduct
its own
If the com-
it in
[Comp.
(Leasing
St.
Act
dence
Feb.
4640i/4-4640'/4ss]).
Supp. 1923, §§
Mey-
pany was to
renounce
Ann.
gas
assignees
Finding
lease
oil
compelled
burden,
ers
to assume that
original
location had
mineral
holder
equal
importance
was of
to have this
rights
lease,
there
that all
abandoned their
As the
same
control.
оf exclusive
terminated,
as
favor had
in their
gave
right of ex-
subsequent lessees,
rights
as to inter
by Department
In
est in lease
assumed
control,
clusive
cor-
(Comp.
Leasing
Feb.
Act
terior under
upon it
responding duty rested
to determine
4S4íy3Á--íQ4-0:1Áss),
Supp. 1928,
held
§§
St. Ann.
supported
seasonably
it would do so or not
whether
evidence.
notify Meyers of its
and to
decision.
required
act with reasonable
contract
it to
Appeal from the District Court
circumstances,
diligence, under the attendant
Wyoming;
the District of
toward
ascertain and define
Kennedy, Judgе.
T. Blake
liability.
If it had notice
and another
M. Burke
Suit
liability, it
rely to disclaim
which it would
the trial of
who
Taylor,
died
Robert
promptness
must act
reasonable
it was
started, but before
cause had
knowledge.
obtaining
Also,
executor, Ralph R.
whose
completed, and
reasonably
notice of facts which would
raise
defendant, and
Horth, was substituted
a doubt
its mind as
existence
Company
Oil
wherein the Columbine
*7
upon
under the con-
which
Erom
intervening defendants.
another were
duty
depend,
tract
to investi-
256),
(296 F.
dismissing the bill
a decree
diligence
gate
those facts
reasonable
(cid:127)
appeal. Affirmed.
plaintiffs
promptness upon
and act with reasonable
also,