« AnteriorContinuar »
It is then enacted that any person who, after the 8th March then next, should set up any such office, should forfeit for every such offence £500.
It was, no doubt, intended by the Act to reach apprenticeship ins. offices under the general term "service" ins. ; and in that respect it was successful; but the business was continued in a somewhat novel and unexpected manner.
The Grand Contribution Office of Crane Court, Fleet-st., which had been founded with a view to ins. apprentices, etc., after the old manner, now altered its course, and undertook ins. on the LIVES of apprentices, children, etc.
The Hudson's Bay Trading Co., which had obtained its charter in 1670, appears, in common with other trading corporations of the period, to have deemed its powers sufficiently elastic for any purpose; and had therefore in 1711, or before, undertaken the bus. of apprenticeship and marriage ins., as we have seen it at one time undertook the granting of annu. on lives. Accordingly we find that about the month of June, 1711, it issued a notice to all subs. to pay up arrears; and that books would be opened on 17th July, and attendance given from 10 till 2 and from 4 till 7, for the purpose of taking subs. for apprenticeship ins.
On 6th September notice was given by the Co. that a div. would be made on 6th October next, "for enabling apprentices to set up their trades, unto such whose contract or indenture expires on or before this inst. September."
On the 6th February, 1712, the Hudson's Bay Co. issued the following:
Being informed of some frauds designed at their 3rd dividend of apprentices which will be paid the 2nd April next, pursuant to their proposal; they therefore give notice, that whoever shall discover any person who shall presume to make claim on any clerk or apprentice who was either dead, married, or deserted from his or her master's or mistress's service, before the expiration of their contract or indenture, shall upon proof of such fraud receive the sum of 10s. reward, such proof to be made before the 25th March next.
On 29th March, 1712, the Perpetual "and only lawful office of the first inventor for the benefit of newly married persons, apprentices, and children, is still continued at Lond. Stone," issued the following notice:
And whereas the profits and encouragements of the same have of late been lessened by the setting up of above 200 other Unlawful offices, by indigent proprietors, who could give no security, but cheated the public, and are all now suppressed by Parl., though several of them are begun again to act the same under new disguises, by which they think to avoid the law, etc.
The bus. under this phase ultimately died out. The precise circumstances under which it did so will be explained under GAMBLING INSURANCES.
Provisions for apprenticing lads may now be and are made by means of ENDOWMENT pol. It is indeed one of the most legitimate purposes for which such pol. are granted. APPROXIMATION (Lat. proximus, nearest, next to).-A drawing near to. In mathematics quantities are said to be approximate, which are nearly, but not absolutely, equal. In mathematics too quantities are frequently investigated which, from their very nature, are not susceptible of accurate numerical determination. We have then recourse to methods of approximation by means of which the values of such quantities can be ascertained to any required degree of accuracy.-Brande's Dict.
The early writers on annu. values used methods of approximation. Those employed by Halley, Simpson, and Baily, will be found collected in Baily's Int. and Annu., p. 123. See also Method by Mr. E. Ryley, Assu. Mag., i., p. 332.
In 1850 Mr. Peter Hardy read before the Inst. of Act. a paper On Methods of Approximation. He afterwards found, and acknowledged, that Prof. De Morgan had, in his Essay on Prob., enunciated the germ of the idea, he (Mr. Hardy) had developed in this paper.
APPURTENANCES.-Belonging to another thing; as yards, orchards, gardens appurtenant to a dwelling-house. Appurtenant, pertaining or belonging to.
ARBITRAMENT.-The award or decision of arbitrators upon a matter of dispute which has been submitted to them. Arbiter, a private extrajudicial judge; an arbitrator or referee. ARBITRATE.-To judge; to make an agreement.
ARBITRATION (from arbiter, an umpire).—In law, the investigation before an unofficial person or persons of the matters in difference between contending parties. The judgment of the arbitrator is called an award. [AWARD.] Submission to arbitration was authorized and made equivalent to the decision of a jury in 1698, by 9 & 10 Wm. III. c. 15. The Common Law Procedure Acts, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76 (1852), 17 & 18 Vict. c. 25 (1854), and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 126 (1860), authorize the Judges of the Superior Courts to order compulsory arbitration.
Most pol. of ins. contain an arbitration clause, to the effect that in the event of any dispute concerning the subject-matter of the pol., the same shall be referred to arbitration. But against this it must be remembered that it is a rule of law, that parties cannot by contract oust the Courts of their jurisdiction. They may, however, agree that the measure of damages shall be settled by arbitration as a condition precedent to an action. The decisions appear to be uniform; that is those of more recent date.
The earliest ins. case we have met with involving this point is that of Kitt v. Hollister, tried at the Guildhall, in 1746. The pol. contained a power to refer. The plaintiff
averred in his declaration that there had been no reference-thus throwing the onus on the defendant of not having set in motion his remedy. It was there held, that the agreement of parties could not oust the Court; and as no reference had been made, and none was depending, the action was well brought, and the plaintiff must have judgment.
The leading case on the subject appears to be Scott v. Avery, finally decided in the House of Lords in 1856. Avery had effected in a mut. ins, co. a pol. on a ship, one of the conditions of which was that the sum to be paid for loss to any one insured should, in the first instance, be ascertained by a committee; but if a difference should arise between the insured and the committee relative to the settling of any loss, or a claim for average, or any other matter relating to the ins., the difference was to be referred in a way pointed out in the conditions: provided always that no insured who refused to accept the amount settled by the committee should be entitled to maintain any action or suit in Equity on his pol. until the matter had been decided by the arbitrators, and then only for such sum as they should award. The obtaining their decision was declared a condition precedent to the maintaining of an action. Held, that these conditions were lawful, and that (even should the difference relate to other matters than those of mere amount), till an award was made, no action was maintainable.
The case of Roper v. Lendon (Sec. of Kent Fire) throws some light upon the principle involved in the preceding decision. It was there held that a condition in a contract to refer any question which may arise out of the contract will be, if so stated, a condition precedent to the right to sue on the contract; but unless the condition expressly stipulates that until arbitration had no action shall be brought, its performance is not precedent to the right to sue on the contract. This case was determined in 1859.
In the case of Braunstein v. Accidental Death Ins. Co., tried in the Queen's Bench, 1861, there was a condition that in case of difference of opinion as to the amount of compensation payable in any case, the question should be referred to a person to be named by the sec. for the time being of the Master of the Rolls, and all expenses should be subject to such arbitrator, and the award made on such arbitration was to be taken as a final settlement of the question, and might be made a rule of Court. Held, that a reference in the manner prescribed was a condition precedent to bringing an action for an injury within the pol.
In the case of Tredwin v. Holman, tried in the Exchequer, in 1862, the pol. was subject to the following rule:
All average claims and claims of abandonment shall be adjusted and settled, conformably to the custom of Lloyds' or the Royal Exchange, by a professional average-stater. But should the committee or the assured be dissatisfied by the adjustment, they may refer the same to two professional average-staters, or to two other competent persons, with power to such two persons to appoint an umpire, and the award of such two persons shall be final; and all other cases of dispute of whatever nature shall be referred in like manner; but the committee or assured, by mut. consent, may refer all such adjustments or disputes to one person only, whose award shall also be final, and no action shall be brought until the arbitrators have given their decision.
Held, that no action could be maintained on the pol. for a total loss until the claim had been adjusted and settled by the arbitration pursuant to the rule.
The teaching of these cases appears to be this. If a pol. or other contract contains (at the time of its execution) an agreement to refer all or any disputes, the Court will uphold that agreement, provided steps be taken towards enforcing the reference previous to any action being brought. The rule against ousting the Courts of their jurisdiction appears to apply only to agreements of reference made after disputes have arisen, or after the amount in question has been determined. This was the principle laid down in Blythe v. Lafone: i.e. "The statute does not give the Court power to stay proceedings in an action upon a deed or an instrument, unless the deed or instrument contains an agreement to refer differences, though the parties may have made an agreement in writing subsequently to the differences arising." Decided 1859, see Fisher's Digest, 218.
In the more recent case of Elliott v. Royal Exchange, decided in the Exchequer Chamber, 1867, the facts were as follow: By a pol. against fire, it was declared that the cap. of the corp. should be liable to pay to the insured any loss by fire not exceeding £4200, according to the exact tenor of the articles hereunto subjoined," one of which was in the following terms:
All persons assu. by this corp. are, upon any loss or damage by fire, forthwith to give notice to the office in Lond., or to the known agents of the corp,, and within 15 days after such fire deliver in as particular an account of their loss or damage as the nature of the case may admit, and make proof of the same by their oath or affirmation, and that of their domestics or servants, and by their books of accounts, and such other proper vouchers as may be required; which loss or damage, after the same shall be adjusted, shall immediately be paid in money by the corp. without any deduction. Or they shall at their option forthwith provide or supply the assu. with the like quantity and quality of goods with those burnt or damaged by fire; or at the expiration of 60 days after notice of the fire, they shall expend in rebuilding or repairing any building damaged or destroyed by fire, the sum assured thereon, under the direction of able and experienced workmen, if the loss and damage shall in their opinion amount thereto. In case any difference shall arise touching any loss or damage, such difference shall be submitted to the judgment and determination of arbitrators indifferently chosen, whose award in writing shall be conclusive and binding on all parties; but if there shall appear any fraud or false swearing, the claimant shall forfeit all benefit of claim.
Held, that the covenant was not an absolute covenant to indemnify, with a collateral
agreement to refer disputes to arbitration; but was a covenant to pay an amount adjusted between the parties by agreement or arbitration; and, therefore, that the adjustment of the amount was a condition precedent to a right to sue on the covenant in the pol. Thus, again, the arbitration clause was limited to its proper function of ascertaining the amount actually due under the pol. in respect of the loss, and so it was in conformity with the previous decisions.
In Mr. Flanders' excellent treatise on F. ins. (Phil., 1871), we find the following under "remedy of the insured":
If the loss incurred by the assured is not paid, he may sue for the amount, notwithstanding a stipulation in the pol. to refer all disputes to arbitration; such a stipulation being held invalid as an attempt to oust the Courts of jurisdiction by excluding the assured from all resort to them for his remedy. That is, a stipulation which in effect says that the parties shall never be heard in Court, is against the liberty and dominions of the law, and void.
The law is the same here, if the loss be not paid when the amount of the loss has been determined.
The more important clauses of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, are in effect as follows:
By s. 11. Whenever the parties to any deed or instrument in writing to be, after 24th of October, 1854, made or executed, shall agree that any then existing or future differences between them shall be referred to arbitration; and they or any one claiming through or under them shall nevertheless commence an action in respect of the matters so agreed to be referred; the Court, or a Judge, on application by the defendant after appearance and before plea, upon being satisfied that no sufficient reason exists why such matters cannot or ought not to be referred, according to the agreement of the parties, and that the defendant was at the time of bringing the action and still is ready and willing to join and concur in all acts necessary and proper for causing such matters to be decided by arbitration, may stay the proceedings, on such terms as to costs and otherwise as may seem fit.
By s. 12. If in case of arbitration the document authorizing the reference provides that the reference shall be to a single arbitrator, and all the parties do not, after differences have arisen, concur in appointing one, or if the one appointed refuse to act, or become incapable of acting or die, and the terms of the document do not show that it was intended that the vacancy should not be supplied, and the parties do not concur in appointing a new one; or if where the parties, or two arbitrators, are at liberty to appoint an umpire and do not, or if the appointed umpire refuse to act, or become incapable of acting or die, and the terms of the document authorizing the reference do not show that it was intended that the vacancy should not be supplied, and they do not appoint one; then any party may serve the remaining parties or arbitrators with a written notice to appoint an arbitrator, or umpire, as the case may be; and if within 7 clear days after the service of the notice no arbitrator or umpire is appointed, a Judge may, upon the application of the party who serves the notice, appoint an arbitrator or umpire, who has the like power to act as if appointed by consent of all parties.
By s. 13, it is provided that when the reference is to two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party, and either fails to appoint, the other may, after giving 7 clear days written notice, appoint an arbitrator to act alone. S. 14 enables two arbitrators to appoint an umpire. S. 15 directs that the award shall be made within 3 months after the arbitrator has been appointed and entered upon the reference, unless the time has been enlarged by the consent of parties, or the Court, or the Judge. S. 10. The award may be enforced by the authority of a Judge, at any time after 7 days from the time of pub., notwithstanding that the time for moving to set it aside has not lapsed.
It seems hardly necessary to add, that where Fraud is imputed, the question of arbitration cannot be entertained. [CLAIMS.] [COMPROMISE.] [FRAUD.]
ARBITRATOR, OR ARBITER, a disinterested person to whose judgment and decision matters in dispute are referred.
ARBUTHNOT, JOHN, M.D., pub. in 1692: Of the Laws of Chance, or a Method of Calculation of the Hazards of Game Plainly Demonstrated. This appears to have been one of the earliest, if not the first work pub. in England on the subject.
ARCHANGEL.-This town, like many other Russian towns, has suffered severely by fire. In 1763 it was entirely destroyed; 1777, 200 houses were burnt; in 1793, 3000 houses and the cathedral and other public buildings were destroyed.
ARCHER, HENRY, was Act. of Operative Mut. from its formation in 1845 until it passed out of sight.
ARCHER, W. H., was Act. of Catholic Life in 1849; and of Catholic Gild Prov. in 1850. We do not know if this be the same Mr. W. H. Archer, who afterwards became, and we believe still is, Reg.-General of Victoria. That gentleman has shown what interesting statistics may be compiled even concerning very young colonies; and has also shown great skill and method in the arrangement. The name has become a household word in statistical circles here.
ARCHITECTS, CIVIL ENGINEERs, Builders, and Gen. F. and L. INS. ANNU. AND REV. INT. Co.-This Co. was formed by D. of Sett. dated 18th November, 1847, and enrolled under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, with an authorized cap. of £1,000,000. The Chairman was Sydney Smirke, A. R.A., and the Man. and Act. Mr. John Reddish. The prosp. said, "The rates for both F. and L. Ins. are as low as can with safety be taken." As to life, "One half the ann. prem. may be left unpaid for 7 years, or one-third to the end of life-thus large sums may be ins. at the smallest possible outlay." The Co. had provincial directors in Manchester, Exeter, Northampton, Hertford. In 1850 a special Act-13 Vict. c. x.was obtained for changing the name of the Co. to the British Assu. Co., under which heading its hist. will be continued.
ARCHITECTS LIFE AND FIRE.-A Co. under this title was projected in 1847. afterwards founded under the new name.
ARCUS SENILIS (bow of age).-An opaque circle seen in the eyes of some persons of advanced age, and depending on fatty degeneration.-Hoblyn.
ARGLES, G. F., was Sec. of Lond. branch of Brit. and Foreign Marine for several years; and afterwards became Sec. of Hercules (No. 3).
ARGUS LIFE Assu. Co., founded in 1833, with an authorized cap. of £300,000, in 3000 shares of £100, with £25 paid. The price of the shares has varied as follows: 1862, 28; 1865 (15 April), 17 10s.; 1871 (1st December), £22 to £24. The causes of these variations may be found in part in the subsequent hist. of the co., but the variations are also to be traced to the periods of declaring a bonus, and the amount of such bonus.
The orig. prosp. contained, amongst other things, the following statements: "L. assu. enables those who depend on personal exertion or on life income for support, and all persons who may be incapable of accumulating a sufficient fund out of their savings, to secure a maintenance for their families in the event of premature death. It gives to owners of landed property the opportunity of providing for widows and younger children without incumbering their estates." "So extensive, however, is the practice of L. ins. in this country, and so numerous are the cases in which it may be resorted to as an economical mode of investment, or as a precautionary measure of security, that although many excellent offices have been estab. for this purpose, they do not appear to have kept pace either with the rapid advance of pop. or the increased demands of the community. This consideration has led to the estab. of the Argus." "In forming this estab., the object of the Directors has been to present great and unusual advantages to the assured. Their attention has been chiefly directed to 3 points, viz.: (1). To offer the lowest rates of assu. consistent with safety to the inst. (2). To give increased facilities in effecting assu. And (3). To afford to the pol.-holders security for the prompt settlement of their claims." "In furtherance of the first object, they have, after a careful consideration of the best authorities, and the most authentic obs. on the duration of human life, and after minute and laborious calculations, been enabled to frame a set of T. extensively varied, to suit the object of different parties, and presenting much lower rates of assu, than those of any other office." In view of the second object, they were to have "daily boards," and to dispense with "all unnecessary formalities," so that a pol. might be delivered "in a few hours." As to the third object, there was to be no "vexatious litigation or delay in the settlement of claims by reason of technical objection, or unintentional misstatements of any kind." On the whole, the Directors felt confidence that "by combining economy and security, with facility and despatch of bus., they have effected such improvements in the system of L. ins. as will secure for this estab. a decided preference on the part of the public."
As to the rates of prem., they were about 5 p.c. higher than those charged by Economic at the same period; but they were lower than those charged by many offices. Pol. were issued on increasing and decreasing rates of prem. Fixed rates of prem. enabling the ins. to travel in all parts of the world were to be endorsed on pol. at the time of issuing same. "No proof of age is required after death, and in case of unintentional mis-statement as to age, the pol. will not become forfeited, but an equitable proportion will be deducted from the sum assu. The prosp. did not suggest how even an "unintentional mis-statement was to be discovered, no proof being required. Medical officers were to be immediately appointed "in all the principal towns throughout the kingdom, on the Continent, and in the Colonies." Among the Directors was the much-respected name of Lewis Pocock. The Sec. was Mr. Samuel Barrett.
In 1835 the Co., which was constituted under a D. of Sett., obtained a special Act of Parl., 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. lxxvi.—An Act to enable the Proprietors or Shareholders in the Argus L. Assu. Co. to sue and be sued in the name of any one of the Directors, or of the Chairman or Sec. for the time being of the said Co. This Act recited that "whereas the public will be greatly benefited by the formation of such Co., and a considerable revenue will be derived to His Majesty therefrom, etc." The Act was not to extend to incorp. of Co., as indeed will be presently seen. A memorial of the names of the Directors, Chairman, Sec., and Proprietors, to be from time to time inrolled in the Court of Chancery. An execution upon judgment against a Director, Chairman, or Sec., may be issued against any present proprietor; and if such execution is ineffectual, fresh execution may be issued against any former proprietor. Persons so proceeded against to be indemnified by Co. (s. 8). Indeed, the judgment was to extend to property of Co. (s. 9). [LEGISLATION FOR INs. Asso.] The Co. for some years transacted a comparatively small bus., and at length, in 1862, a proposal was made to amalg. it with the Eagle, on terms which were generally considered most advantageous to the policy and shareholders. The arrangement was stopped by the Court of Chancery on the intervention of a policy-holder. The circumstances render the case a representative one, and we therefore give the leading details.
At the period of this proposed amalg. the Co. had an ann. income of £85,000, and a prem. fund of £500,000. The D. of Sett. of the Co. contained no power to amalg. or trans. its bus. ; but it did contain power to dissolve on the recommendation of the Board, in which case the Directors were to proceed in such a manner as they should think fair
and reasonable to meet the existing engagements of the Co. So much of the funds as should not be required to meet existing engagements were to be distributed among the shareholders. The deed also provided: That two successive extraordinary general meetings, specially called for the purpose, shall have full power to make any new laws, regulations, or provisions. Also a provision that two successive extraordinary general meetings, specially called for the purpose, should have full power to come to a resolution to dissolve the Co., provided that such should have been previously recommended by the Board of Directors. The deed also contained a further clause (No. 107): That after a dissolution the Board should cease to grant or renew any pol. on behalf of the Co., and should proceed in such a manner as they should think fair and reasonable to meet existing engagements, and should cause so much of the funds as should not be required to meet existing engagements to be distributed among the proprietors.
Before the agreement with the Eagle was complete, but in contemplation of it, two general meetings were held, and a clause was added to the deed:
That an extraordinary general meeting, specially called for that purpose, should have full power, with the consent of three-fourths of the proprietors present and voting, to resolve that the bus. of the Co. should be transferred to any other Co. associated for like purposes, and to appoint a Committee of five proprietors to carry such resolution into effect.
By the agreement with the Eagle, the debts and liabilities and all the property of the Argus were to vest in the Eagle, who were to pay a sum of £164,000 to the Argus in such manner as the committee might direct; and it was provided that Argus shares should be transmuted into Eagle shares, and Argus policy-holders have an endorsement on their policies recognizing the liability of the Eagle, or Eagle policies for the same amount; and when the policies were parti., should, after receiving profit up to the time of the trans., participate pari passu with the Eagle policy-holders afterwards. The pol. were in the usual form, providing that the funds and property of the Co. should (subject to the provisions of the deed) be liable to pay the sum assured, and that the proprietors should not be responsible beyond their shares.
Under these circumstances, a Bill was filed by a parti. policy-holder to restrain the trans., and for a perpetual injunction against any similar amalg. The case came for hearing before V. C. Wood, in 1864-Aldebert v. Leaf. The Court considered that the only question was, whether the proposed trans. was contrary to the provisions of the deed? and was of opinion that it clearly was so, even supposing the supplementary provisions valid against the policy-holders. That although the policy-holders had no such lien as would ordinarily entitle them to interfere in the management of the Co., they were entitled to apply to the Court to stop the waste of the assets, and that the stipulation that the liabilities of the Co. should be provided for out of the funds on a dissolution was one which could not be disturbed to the detriment of any policy-holder.
Mr. Bunyon, reviewing the preceding decree, says:
It is, however, to be noted that the V. C. appeared to think that the amalg. might have been effected if the provisions of the deed had been duly followed. He observed: Even the resolution A, which purports to authorize a sale of the bus., recognizes the obligation to provide for existing policies, and it seemed to me that under that restriction the resolution might, perhaps, be considered valid as a mode of winding-up. And again: I am now dealing with a case of a policy-holder, and if the Co. had made an adequate provision for him by setting aside a proper fund, or in any other way, they might have arranged their affairs as they pleased so far as he was concerned. Handing over the whole concern to another Co. having extensive engagements of its own is not making provision for liabilities. -Law of L. Assu., 2nd ed., p. 163.
In 1865 another attempt was made to amalg. the Co.-this time with the Commercial Union, and upon terms which would have secured to the shareholders about £47 per share return. The Post-Mag., in announcing the fact (18th March, 1865), observes:
This announcement will cause surprise to many who are aware that negotiations were all but completed with a respectable legal office, whereby a larger amount per share would have been received by the shareholders. However, the Directors have doubtless good reasons for choosing the Commercial Union, and it is gratifying, at any rate, to find that they have at last become unanimous upon the question of amalg., and that this concern will now be disposed of without further depreciation of the shareholders' property.
In pursuance of this arrangement, a Bill was introduced to Parl. authorizing the amalg. and the dissolution of the Argus. This Bill came before a Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1866, Earl Cathcart being Chairman; and was rejected.
Since that period we believe no further attempts have been made at amalg. The Co. removed its offices from the City to less expensive ones in King-st., Covent Garden, and is understood to be working off its risks in a very satisfactory manner, and not seeking for
ARISTOCRACY, DURATION OF LIFE AMONG THE.-The inquiries of Dr. Guy show that while the expectation of life for males of E. and W. at 20 years of age is over 40 years, or beyond the age of 60, that of the nobility is only 385, and that a corresponding ratio is maintained at every succeeding decennial period. In analyzing the matter more closely, it would appear that, in point of health and longevity, the aristocracy fall far short of the agriculturist, and below the several professions. The cause of this is to be found, Dr. Guy thinks, in habits of self-indulgence, and the want of incentives to that exertion which tends so much to promote health and vigour. Among men of independent means