Pennsylvania Lumberman's Mut. Fire Ins. v. Meyer

Citations

• 126 F. 352
• 61 C.C.A. 254
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4323

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance — Continuance of Policy — Contract—Comfletion.</p> <p>Where, after defendant had sent notice of cancellation of plaintiff’s policies for failure of plaintiff to pay premiums, defendant wrote plaintiff that if they still desired the policies to be again put in force they should send cheek for the full amount by return mail and plaintiff on the same day and before destruction of the buildings insured mailed his check for the premiums as requested, the contract to again put the policies in force became binding from the time plaintiff’s letter containing the check was posted.</p> <p>8. Same — Validity of Acceptance.</p> <p>Where an insurer offered to reinstate policies which had been canceled for failure of insured to pay premiums, provided insured would send cheek for the full amount of the premiums by return mail, and insured immediately sent the check, and had ample funds in the bank to meet the same before the check could have been presented in the ordinary course of the mails, the fact that at the time the check was sent insured’s bank account was overdrawn did not render the check insufficient to constitute an acceptance of insured’s offer.</p> <p>8. Same — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction—Determination—Circuit Court of Appeals.</p> <p>Where a case is removed from a state court to the United States Circuit Court and the jurisdiction is sustained, the question of jurisdiction cannot be reviewed on a writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals.</p> <p>If 3. Review of jurisdiction of circuit courts, see note to Excelsior Wooden-Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 48 C. C. A. 351.</p>