Webster v. Buffalo Ins.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Webster v. Buffalo Ins.

7 F. 399, 2 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 348, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2236

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedJanuary 4, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 7 F. 399 (Webster v. Buffalo Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Webster v. Buffalo Ins., 7 F. 399, 2 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 348, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2236 (circtedmo 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Treat, D. J.

This case was heretofore presented to the court—Justice Miller, present. The demurrer to the replication raised the question whether the facts alleged would operate as an estoppel, although the contract, as averred in the answer, was ultra vires. It was suggested by Justice Miller that it would have been better if defendant had so shaped his answer as to bring before the court the charter of the company, together with the terms of the contract, so that the court could determine whether the contract was ultra vires or not. But as that course had not been pursued, it was then for the court to decide whether, admitting the contract to be ultra vires, the defendant was estopped by the facts stated in the replication.

On the demurrer to that replication Justice Miller and myself differed in opinion, and consequently judgment followed according to his views. Now, the cause having come on for trial without the intervention of a jury, and all the facts in the replication being admitted of record, the main question is whether, according to the charter under the laws of New York, the defendant corporation had authority, through its agents or otherwise, to make a contract of insurance of the kind stated; that is, on a sea-going or foreign voyage, as contradistinguished from an inland voyage. According • to the terms of the’ charter the contract was ultra vires; and, although all the facts set out in the replication are true, as admitted of record, yet, according to the opinion of Justice Miller, the plaintiff cannot recover in thisea3e, and his opinion must control despite my dissent.

Therefore, judgment must be entered for the defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Treat, D. J.

This case was heretofore presented to the court—Justice Miller, present. The demurrer to the replication raised the question whether the facts alleged would operate as an estoppel, although the contract, as averred in the answer, was ultra vires. It was suggested by Justice Miller that it would have been better if defendant had so shaped his answer as to bring before the court the charter of the company, together with the terms of the contract, so that the court could determine whether the contract was ultra vires or not. But as that course had not been pursued, it was then for the court to decide whether, admitting the contract to be ultra vires, the defendant was estopped by the facts stated in the replication.

On the demurrer to that replication Justice Miller and myself differed in opinion, and consequently judgment followed according to his views. Now, the cause having come on for trial without the intervention of a jury, and all the facts in the replication being admitted of record, the main question is whether, according to the charter under the laws of New York, the defendant corporation had authority, through its agents or otherwise, to make a contract of insurance of the kind stated; that is, on a sea-going or foreign voyage, as contradistinguished from an inland voyage. According • to the terms of the’ charter the contract was ultra vires; and, although all the facts set out in the replication are true, as admitted of record, yet, according to the opinion of Justice Miller, the plaintiff cannot recover in thisea3e, and his opinion must control despite my dissent.

Therefore, judgment must be entered for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F. 399, 2 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 348, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-buffalo-ins-circtedmo-1881.