*1 sаy to to that decision already prior that the unanimous had rendered been court of'Act No. passage meaning below to the as the Act. “inescapably wrong”. was applied prospectively, As in accordance adopted by judgment the court Supreme construction fully below, 44 intelligible legislation Act Puerto Rico is affirmed. by the accomplishing purpose set forth
legislature in its of Mo- formal Statement future, In occurs
tives. strike governor importance justify such toas 10-A, invoking provisions of Section persuaded back tо go men can governor
work the assurance of the require by proclamation he' will HOTEL WOOTTON CORPORATION v. Wage Board to proceed Minimum CO., ASSUR. Limited. NORTHERN 10-A, even- Section with the result No. 8859. tual wage minimum issued order proceeding will be an accelerated board Appeals, Circuit Court of Third Circuit. returned to retroactive to the date the men Argued Nov. 1945. work. May Decided Appellant also contends Act expressly retroac- does authorize face application wage tive order a minimum already
to services before rendered governor’s passed,
Act
proclamation 29, 1942,invoking July
provisions 10-A, of Section was authorized thе literal of that section.
That authorizes action section such governor has “where there exist- exists preceding the six (6)
ed within months date proclamation, Governor’s strike, regard state of ”*
wages. the strike Since
sugar industry February did not end until
16, 1942, “state it can said that a industry particular
strike” in the existed preceding
within months the date six
governor’s proclamation. But оn the face appear ad hoc Act does Rather, legisla-
legislation. it is general amending permanent
tion structure of Wage
the Minimum Act so as afford
orderly dealing with acute strike method may which occur in the future.
situations expressly 10-A does not state that
Section retroactively apply which strikes already terminated.
had absence effect, in to that
some indication unmis- terms, court
takable below at lib- provision
erty construe six-months might referring to strikes occur passage of the Act. To borrow a
after the opinions, our earlier from
phrase one to be arrogance touch of able
would need a
989 sitting without before the District favor decided in jury. a The Court damage to “The holding defendant pier by high water driven caused expressly excepted wind, which hazard is policy.” by the terms of the question for deter our The first contract insurance whether the minatiоn is of New the laws is to be final Pennsylvania. The Jersey or of policy reads: paragraph the face on Company has this “In Witness Whereof but presents; executed and attested these not be valid until counter this Agent signed by authorized duly N. Company Collingswood at 58—14 J (Emphasis Immediаtely following ours). Barbour, signature “R. P. S. U. Manager” and on left Pa., Ball, Philadelphia, for Joseph A. day July, 15th 1941 “Countersigned this appellant. MacConnell, At (Signed) Agent.” E. Joseph Conwell, Jr., Philadelphia, S. to the is a form tached face of the Bodine, Schoch, & (Pepper, Pa. Stokes Cоrporation.” This “Wootton Hotel titled Pa., Philadelphia, Naame, and and Elias to allots Ten Thousand Dollars of the Bolte, Repetto, all Atlantic Miller pier and bal tal insurance to appellee. City, J., brief), on for N. an Thousand Dollars to ance of Three BIGGS, McLAUGHLIN, аnd building which does not concern Before O’CONNELL, Judges. “At Circuit us. It clause: concludes part Policy forming No.
tached to and 120019 of the Northern Assurance Com McLAUGHLIN, Judge. Circuit Collingswood, pany, New issued at its Ltd. corporation Plaintiff Jersey is New a Agency. August Dated 1941 August pos- which on 1941 owned and MаcConnell, (Signed) Agent.” (Em E. pier Beach, Brigantine sessed ocean at phasis ours.) Jersey. On or about New that date the defendant, English company, Sargent, Philadelphia issued a defendant’s plain- of windstorm to the manager, testifying as a witness property counter-signature tiff еxplained the latter’s plaintiff, certain property “Well, latter’s saying: tiff on certain condition of the necessary, Honor, by sum of Thirteen Thousand your Dollars. Ten law to have coverage Thousand Dollars of Jersey counter-sign was al- of New pier. located to the On March and policy; words, in other a resident of Penn moderately there was a sylvania counter-sign policy severe storm at cannot of in Brigantine gale covering property Beach. Winds force state during of it reached a Jersey, maximum veloc- New аnd Mr. MacConnellwho anis ity per of miles hour. The agent residing Jersey, normal wind New state of velocity policies.” for that area the time He sign was 16.8 also would per objection portion pier miles hour. A ex- without that MacConnell testified tending destroyed Philadelphia оut into signed office.1 ocean this, plaintiff’s during attorney the storm. Plaintiff sued the defend- With reference alleged bring ant under the wanted insurance for out this stated he damage pier. to the The case was witness was or tried present away explained MacConnell was nоt he was at the trial. It was Army time.
dered,
Pennsyl
testimony
facts
fail to
how
executed and delivered
see
Sargent,
though presented
vania.”
law
even
without
referred
by the manager
objection,
parol
such an
can
confined
eliminate
rule,
company
despite
nаme,
not a
defendant
business
that rule is
as the
*3
that state
its
accordance with
but one
substantive
strictly in
rule of
of
evidence
provisions.2
Contracts,
right
re
Edi-
Plaintiff based its
of
Revised
law. Williston on
covery
tion,
the
rule
squarely
parol
written insurance
The
Section 631.
(cid:127)
incorpоrated
by
contract which
into
Wigmore
its state as
Professor
is:
it
defined
single
ment of
in
claim. This was
in a
jural
reiterated
“When a
act is embodied
plaintiff’s
memorial,
par-
opening to the Trial Court. The
other
the
utterances of
all
policy
put
plain
in
topic
legally
wаs
into evidence
the
for
ties on
immaterial
are
tiff’s case.
slight
At no time was there the
purpose
determining what are the
the
of
suggestion
any
est
of
waiver
the manda
Wigmore on Evi-
terms of their act.”
tory counter-signature provision above dence,
edition, Section 2425. Restate-
3d
quoted.
by
There
par
was no claim either
Contracts,
setting
243,
ment of
Section
out
ty
policy
that the
was void
not ac
because
particular legal principle here involved
the
tually countersigned
Collingswood.
at
reads:
interpret
There was
attempt
no
to
the lan
integration
by
“Where
the
an
terms of
guage
simply
to mean
Collingswood
a certain
is
creation
fact
essential to the
countersign
necessarily
agent
but not
must
is,
obligation
or continuance of an
it
and
Collingswood.
at
knowledge
obligor, falsely
to thе
re-
Obviously
Jersey
the New
statute
integration
exists,
cited in the
that the fact
counter-signature
reason for both the
and
deprived
integrated agreement
is
not
*
policy language reading:
for the
operation
legal
the existence of the
unless
Collingswood,
Jersey,
issued at
New
by
independently
is made
law
fact
essential
Agency.”
provision calling for the
The
any agreement requiring
it.”
counter-signature must
be construed
Pennsylvania
law of
Under
countersigned Collingswood.
mean
at
This
tried,
in
diversity
so,
where this
case
being
plainly
policy
was intended
litigаtion
is to
this
be
parties
policy
surance
by
to be a
Jersey contract.
Jersey
Newa
contract.
thing
The last
to be
without which
done
Philadelphia,
Fire Ass’n of
agreement,
there was no
Hardiman v.
was the New Jer-
990,
383,
390,
page
page
at
sey counter-signature.
speсific 212 Pa.
A.
It is on that
said:
that the suit is founded.
the Court
Under 991
countersign
policies
statute
all
The New
insurance
issue
and
foreign
issued.”
with reference
and out of
contracts
so
repealed by
companies,
exception
state
with the
This was
the New
doing
companies,
175, p. 675,
life
business
in that
Session Laws
c.
during
period
repealer
May
in effect
Section
state
effective
policy
involved is found
here
passage
Statutes Annotated 17:32-11
Illustration
this
reads:
#1
company,
“A, an
reads:
issues a fire
B,
provides
premium
company
and that
$100
is
the insuranсe
“No insurance
another
company
premi-
country,
foreign
except
not bound until
is
or
a life
state
paid.
may
company,
um
has been
recites
transact
busi-
premium
paid although
except
state,
through duly
has been
ness
this
agents
appointed
not
in fact
it hаs
been. A loss occurs
constituted
during
policy;
herein,
is lia-
the term
A
elsewhere if not au-
or resident
agent
precludes
any
recital
an
in-
from as-
to act as
ble B.
A
thorized
any
invalidity
company
state,
serting
other
because
or
non-performance
principаl place of busi-
of the condition of
as a broker with
acceptance
any
state,
principal
payment.
whose
B’s
other
ness
promise
justifies
place
a
the inference of
for the
of business
conduct of
state,
pay
premium,
supply-
agency
in this
and who
his
is located
requirement
duly
ing
legal
operated
of considera-
fide
maintain a bona
shall
state,
and shall
tion.”
business office
this
that,
here
hereon or added
“The authorities
settled
endorsed
are well
**
to;
interest
where
counter-
void
if
a
be
be
by
state,
signed
than unconditional
agent
insured
other
another
any
*;
ownership
or
governed by
contract
the law
and sole
to be
in
change,
of an
The sub-
the death
state where the
resides.
than
sured,
or
place
interest,
title
stance of
in 22 Am.
the cases is thus
take
stated
insurance,
subjеct
Ed.)
possession
‘If
Eng. Ency.
Law
1350:
(2d
provides
or
legal
judgment,
com- whether
process
that it shall
plete
insured,
by voluntary
or other
countersigned
until
act of the
specified
place
place,
wise.”
of the insurance
contract of the
After
issuance
”
countersigned.’
plaintiffs
a formal contract
where
is to
made
*4
premises
question
in
to their
sale
the
policy
provides
The
further
that it is
completed
and
tenant who
transaction
the
“
accepted subject
and
made
possession.
took
had been
Before the deеd
stipulations
printed on
the
conditions
and
by
property
tendered
fire.
destroyed
the
hereby made a
the back hereof which are
423,
page
144
The Court held 105
N.J.L.
part
policy
states
of this
It
!
798;
at A.
page
.j
stipula-
be no waiver
such
there
cases,
agreement
“Under оur
the
of sale
tions
in
added
writing
and conditions unless
was in
violation of the
direct
terms
policy.
policy
the back of
On
the
the
ownership
policy, in
uncon-
that the
not
appears
following:
the
sole,
change
there is a
the
by
ditional and
void,
be
“This
unless
entire
interest, title,
writtеn
and
provided
writ-
by agreement
otherwise
in
insurance,
possession
subject
the
the
hereto,
ing
sured,
the
in-
added
interest
the
if
provided by
policy,
the
not
indorsed
than
sole
other
unconditional and
be
thereon or added thereto.
v.
Grunauer
ownership;
the
subject
or if
289,
Co.,
Wеstchester
Insurance
72 N.J.L.
by
building
ground
the
on
not owned
418, L.R.A.,N.S.,
62 A.
That case
3
simple;
any change
in
insured
fee
or
court,
was in this
facts
the
the case
insured,
other
death
take
than
the
substantially
same,
are
the
as the facts of
interest,
place
possession
or
title
the
the cаse under discussion. Hanson v. Na-
change
the subject
(except
of insurance
Liberty,
Co.,
tional
Fire
100
Insurance
N.J.
occupants);
assigned
if this
215,
L.
ly lacking.” question any
In this matter is no there applicable ownership
waiver of condi- attempt by plaintiff
tion. There is no impact to avoid Levin decision JONES v. CORPORA- WATERMAN S. S. urgе is to be than CO., (READING Party TION Third Pennsylvania and not New Defendant). *5 Admittedly law. a writ- there was 8930, 8945. Nos. particular ten for the sale Appeals, Circuit Cburt of premises at the Third Circuit of the storm. Within time Argued Nov. a week thereafter the sale was consummat- May 28, 1946. Decided properly ed. The issue wаs raised supplemental
fifth defense answer. controlling
Under the law the of sale violated the plaintiff’s
bars thereunder. recovery above, unnecessary
In view of it is phrase
to discuss water” in the “high express
instant opinion no However,
regarding may well to it.
point out while same clause did
appear in Newark Trust v.
Agricultural Co., Cir., Ins. F. not there construed. That case turned entirely different condition.
Affirmed.
BIGGS, concurring. Judge, Circuit majority opinion
I concur respects in all reasoning save one. Supreme Pennsyl-
decision of the Court of in Hardiman v. Fire Ass’n Phila-
vania 383, 390, 990, .991,
delphia, 212 Pa. 61 A. majority opinion, sets out the
cited in the
applicable Pennsylvania conflict-of-laws in the cited case said:
rule. that, well settled
“The authorities are to be counter-
where state, in another
signed by an governed by
contract is to the law of resides.” where It is the state policy in the instant case was
clear that countersigned Jersey by