Imágenes de páginas

question the legislature has hitherto remained silent; but from the courts there are decisions in abundance.

We may at this point quote a passage from Bunyon's Law of Life Assu., which affords a philosophical explanation of much which is to follow :

The liabilities of ins. cos. vary in kind from those of almost any other co.; they are liabilities undertaken to be performed at future and perhaps very distant dates, and although susceptible of valuation with some accuracy in the mass, are in detail scarcely capable of valuation at all. For example, if the liabilities of an office are represented by one or five millions insured, an actuary can tell very nearly what sum of money, in addition to the annually accruing premiums, will eventually pay the claims; but if we take the case of a single policy, effected on the life of a person now become infirm, or perhaps lying at death's door, and for an amount absolutely necessary at his death to provide for the renewal of a lease, and the preservation of a valuable family property, who can say what sum short of the whole amount assured can compensate for its loss or surrender. And hence it follows, that the only way in which the liabilities of an ins. co. can be fairly met is by inducing another co. to undertake them, or in other words by an amalgamation or transfer. . . . The mode by which the affairs of a life office are met by the Court of Chancery in the case of a compulsory winding-up appears to be this: treating the pols. and annu. granted as claims to be valued, as upon a bankruptcy, and giving to the individual holders the estimated value as upon an actuary's valuation upon the day upon which the co. closed its bus. The form of an order on the subject of immature ins. is given in the case of Evans v. Coventry (re London Mutual) directing an inquiry: "What ins, were in existence on the day when the co. closed its business, distinguishing whether for life, or during sickness, or for money payable at a deferred period, and what annuities were then in existence, and whether then payable or deferred, and in whose favour, and who were then and are now entitled to the benefit of those ins. and annuities, and what was then the value of such ins. and annuities respectively." This may be scant justice to persons whose health will not allow them to insure elsewhere; while to others who may be able at once to effect policies in a solvent co., it may give more than the values their policies might otherwise realize, since an ins. co. never purchases its pol. at their full value, and at the auction mart they might be worthless. [ALBERT ARBITRATION.]


We propose now to review some of the more important cases of amalg, which have come before our law courts, stating the leading points involved in each. We also propose to quote the several authors who have written upon the subject, and it will be more convenient to proceed in chronological order, as we may thereby trace the development of the principles enunciated. On the whole, the courts of law have certainly been favourable to amalg.

In the case of King v. Accumulative Assu. Co., decided in the Exchequer Chamber, 1857, the important point was raised: How far the concurrence of the policy-holders is necessary to a trans. of business? We give the principal points of the ruling, this being now regarded as a leading case.

Cockburn, C. J.: There is no implied covenant in a policy, on the part of the grantors, to continue the bus. of an ins. co. It has been contended, that such an implied covenant arises on that part of the policy, which provides that "the capital stock and other the securities, funds, and property of the said co. remaining, at the time of any claim or demand made, unapplied and undisposed of, and inapplicable to prior claims and demands in pursuance of the provisions of the Deed of Sett., shall alone be liable to answer and make good all claims, etc., under or by virtue of this policy; and that no director, officer, or shareholder, etc., shall be in any wise individually or personally liable, etc., beyond the amount unpaid of his shares." It seems to me, all that was intended by that proviso was, to protect the shareholders from individual and personal liability to the holders of policies. It was evidently introduced, not for the purpose of enlarging the security and extending the remedy of the policyholder, but precisely the reverse.

Williams, J.: It seems to me to be impossible to say, that the policy amounts to anything more than a contract, that the plaintiff or his executors shall receive the sum assured, when the time for payment shall have arrived. It is difficult to imply from the circumstance of the policy-holder being entitled to a share of profits, a contract on the part of the co. that they will, in order to give him a better chance of profits, continue to carry on the business, supposing it should turn out to be disadvantageous to them to do so.

Crowder, J.: What injury has the plaintiff sustained? It may very well be that the co. were in a bad way, and that the new co. are much more likely to meet the claims of the policy-holders, when the proper time arrives. This has been very properly characterized as an action quia timet. When the event assured against has happened, and not till then, the plaintiff or his representatives will be entitled to enforce the policy.

Willes, J.: There is no contract by the defendants with the plaintiff, that they will not alien or transfer their funds.

It would be difficult to conceive anything more clear and distinct than the principles here laid down.

In the case of Ernest v. Nicholls, arising out of an amalg. between the Sea, Fire, Life, and the Port of London Co. (Ernest being official manager of the former, and Nicholls the official manager of the latter), which came before the House of Lords in 1857, on appeal from the Lords Justices, the Lord Chancellor said in delivering judgment :

Your lordships will observe that the transaction in question was a purchase by the one co. of the goodwill and the whole concern of the other. That would ordinarily speaking be a transaction in which no co. would be justified in engaging, because it certainly cannot be said to be within the ordinary scope of the object of any co. to purchase the goodwill of another. But all question upon that head is removed by a clause that there is in the deed under which the Sea, Fire, Life Åssu. So. was constituted, and which expressly authorized such a transaction.

This was really obiter dicta, not being necessarily involved in the question before the Court.

In February, 1858, Mr. Jellicoe submitted to the Inst. of Actuaries a paper: On the Principles which should govern Assu. Cos. in amalg. The learned gentleman prefaced his paper by saying that the subject was one as to which a good deal of misapprehension exists," and then proceeded :

[ocr errors]

An impression, I believe, very commonly prevails that combinations of the nature in question are little better than rude and arbitrary arrangements, in which the rights of the several parties concerned are not much regarded, and which are usually carried out by sacrificing more or less the interests of one class in those of another. I propose now to show that such is by no means the case that these arrangements are susceptible of the nicest and most accurate adjustment-that the advantages derived from them are appreciable with great exactness, and that the rights of all concerned may be most scrupulously maintained. It is true that details being somewhat complicated, persons unfamiliar with such subjects are not very well able to satisfy themselves of this; but the fact is so nevertheless, as we will now endeavour to demonstrate.

He then gives a summary of the details required to be known regarding each asso., and says thereon:

It will be obvious that whatever elements are used in estimating the value of the properties of the one co. the same must be strictly adhered to in determining that of the other. Thus the rates of mort, and int. must be the same, and the formulæ made use of in the various investigations on the one side must, for similar purposes, be always applied on the other. It will be found most convenient

to take credit in the gross for all prems. payable in respect of the several existing contracts, so that the amounts put down as representing the liability under them will be sufficient merely to provide for the risks; for it is to be borne in mind that the object is to determine what remains after every liability legally incurred is provided for. For expenses, and for add. by way of bonus, etc., we must look to the "surplus;" and thus this particular item becomes, in conjunction with others, the indicator of the relative condition of the two cos.


The equality supposed to exist as above will of course rarely be found to exist, and hence there will be an excess to be thrown off. This excess will have to be dealt with by the co. to which it belongs prior to the amalg., and should be apportioned amongst its members in the manner prescribed by its own regulations; and an equality being thus estab., the two sos. are in a condition to be blended without any unfairness to either.

He shows the conditions essential to the fulfilment of these requirements, and concludes the paper as follows:

That these operations, when properly carried out, are productive of much good, nobody, we think, will deny; while they serve, on the one hand, to give strength and vigour to the surviving inst., they arrest the downward course of the more feeble ones, and in some instances, it may be, avert no small amount of distress and embarrassment from those concerned with them.

This paper was printed in Assu. Mag. vol. vii., and in the same vol. will be found a letter from Mr. Sprague commenting thereon-approving of the plan suggested by Mr. Jellicoe for remedying differences in rates of prem., and equalizing bonuses-and showing that the rules laid down for accomplishing these ends have even a wider application than Mr. Jellicoe had claimed for them.

In the case of the Saxon Assu, ex parte Anchor Assu., heard before V.C. Wood in 1862, a claim against the Saxon Co. was admitted, notwithstanding that an attempt had been made to trans. its liabilities to another Co. (the Era), and that the Anchor had accepted an exchange of an Era security for their Saxon one. [See Carr's case in Waterloo Ins. Co. 1864.] And in the same year, in the case of the Saxon Assu. ex parte the Era Assu., a petition on the part of the purchasing Co. to be repaid by the selling Co., the excess of the liabilities they had incurred over the assets which had been trans., was dismissed by V. C. Wood.

In the case of Bishop v. Scott, arising out of the amalg. of the United Kingdom Life with the North British, which was heard before V.C. Wood, in 1863, the facts were as follows: A bill was filed by a parti. policy-holder in the United Kingdom to restrain that Co. from carrying out an arrangement for a transfer of the funds, assets, etc., of that Co. to the North British by way of amalg. The Bill also prayed for an account of the assets and liabilities of the first-named Co., and for the appointment of a receiver. On a motion for injunction, it was held that the Court, considering that the policy-holder would not be damnified by the proceedings for the amalg. remaining in statu quo until the hearing of the cause, would decline to grant an injunction as prayed, the principal part of the arrangements having been carried out.

The point was raised in this case whether a policy-holder in a Life Ins. Co. with parti. in profits was not a partner. It was not pursued.

În Carr's case, arising out of the affairs of the Waterloo, which came before the Master of the Rolls in 1864, the facts were as follows:

The Deed of Asso. of the Co. which bound the policy-holders, contained a power to dissolve; and thereupon the Directors were to get from another Co. an undertaking to pay all future liabilities, and to trans. to such guaranteeing Co. so much of the funds as should be agreed on between the contracting parties, and as would be sufficient to enable the Co. to comply with their undertaking. The Court held that the amount to be paid over was a matter of agreement between the two cos. with which policy-holders had no concern, and that a policy-holder who refused to be trans. had no claim upon the Waterloo. "I am of opinion (said the Judge) that the policy-holders are bound, and that if they do not choose to accept the undertaking of the British Nation (to which offices the bus. had been trans.), they cannot prove against the Waterloo Co."

In the case of Aldebert v. Leaf, arising out of a proposed trans. of the bus. of the Argus Life to the Eagle, it was held by V. C. Wood, that when by the provisions of the D. of Sett. of an Ins. Co., the directors are bound upon a dissolution to set aside sufficient funds out of the assets of the Co. to meet existing engagements, an agreement for the

trans. of a bus. without making such a provision is ultra vires. It was further held that a policy-holder, though he has no such charge upon the funds of the Co. as will give him priority over other creditors, or entitle him to interfere with the directors in the ordinary management of the bus., has a right to file his bill in such a case; but the Court will only extend its relief to the circumstances that have arisen, and not to those that may thereafter arise.

In Ex parte Webster, arising out of British Provident L. and F., heard before V. C. Kindersley in 1864, the following circumstances arose. By deed dated 1st June, 1858, the Anglo-Australian L. was to be amalg. with the Brit. Provident, the terms being that the bus., property and effects of the Anglo-Australian should be trans. to the Brit. Provident, and that the shareholders of the former should become shareholders in the latter, and should execute its D. of Sett. ; and that thereupon the said shareholders should, out of the funds and property of the Brit. Provident, be indemnified against all claims in respect of the Anglo-Australian Co., and that such shareholders as should fail to execute the D. of Sett. should be precluded from the benefit of such amalg. The Brit. Provident being afterwards wound up, the official manager sought to place one of the shareholders of the Anglo-Australian, who had not executed the Deed of the Brit. Provident, upon the list of contributories. The application was dismissed with costs.

In March, 1864, the present Premier, whilst introducing his Post Office Life Insurance Bill, remarked :

That amalgamation is an illustration of what you will probably say is no better than wholesale robbery. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") Nay more, I will go a step further, and say that a great many of these proceedings are worse than wholesale robbery, and there are many persons who have never seen the inside of a gaol, and yet who had fitter be there than many a rogue who has been convicted ten times over at the Old Bailey. ("Hear, hear.") The inside of a gaol would be the proper locale for some of the persons connected with insurance amalgamations.

If Mr. Gladstone really believed this, why did he not move for a committee of inquiry, armed with full parliamentary powers? He might have prevented some of the mischief which has since arisen.

Mr. Lindley, in his great work on Partnerships and Cos. (2nd ed. 1867), offers the following observations on this subject :

A co. incorp. by Charter or special Act of Parl. cannot delegate its powers, and therefore cannot transfer its bus. even for a time to another co., nor can the majority of shareholders of any co. bind the minority by an agreement to transfer its property and business, unless such power is conferred by the original constitution of the co. Nor is it competent for the majority of one co. to purchase the assets and liabilities of another without similar powers. Whence it follows that two cos. cannot amalg, with each other unless such a transaction is authorized by the constitutions of both cos., or unless all the shareholders in both consent to the amalg. And where there is power to amalg., that power must be strictly pursued, or at least there must be no substantial departure from it.

In the case of the International and Hercules, ex parte Blood, heard before V.C. Malins in January, 1870, the V.C. stated his opinion that an Act of Parl. ought to be passed prohibiting these trans. of bus. and assets from one ins. co. to another. They placed the policy-holders in a position of great embarrassment as to what course they ought to adopt whether they were bound to go over to the new co. or had any option in the matter. The numerous transfers which had been effected had worked infinite injury during the last 25 years.

In the case of Southall v. British Mutual, a suit by a policy-holder of that co. to set aside an amalg. between it and the Prudential, on the ground of being ultra vires, heard before the Master of the Rolls in December, 1870, it was held to be quite legal for any co. to be placed under the winding-up sections of the Cos. Act, 1862, for the sole purpose of carrying out an amalg. contract.

This decision, which is a very important one, was confirmed by the Lords Justices, on appeal (1871). We hear that it is now to be carried to the House of Lords.

In view of the decided cases, and as a matter of prudence, every new ins. asso. should embody in its constitution, when founded, the most ample powers for amalg. with, trans. itself to, or taking over the bus of any other ins. asso. This may be readily accomplished by inserting such a clause as the following in the "objects" set forth in mem. of asso. : To promote, establish, and aid other cos. or asso. for effecting any objects similar or analagous to the objects of the or which may be auxiliary, subsidiary, or otherwise conducive to or connected with such objects, and to acquire and hold shares and interests in such cos, and asso. or the property or bus. thereof. To amalg. or unite with and absorb into the co. any other cos. or asso. already or hereafter to be formed for effecting any of the objects of the co., or any similar or analagous objects; and to acquire and hold shares and interests in, and to acquire the bus. and property of such cos. and asso.

Then, in the body of the articles, there should be inserted, under "powers of directors," the following:

To carry into effect any arrangements which may be recommended by the directors [and approved of by a General Meeting], for the amalg. or union of the co. with any other co. or asso. already or to be hereafter formed for objects similar or included in the objects of the co., as specified in the Memo. of Asso., or for the dissolution or extinction of the co., or the winding-up of its affairs, or for the transfer of its business, property, and liabilities to any other co.

The words in brackets may be inserted or not, as a rule it is better they should be.
On the general policy of amalg. we do not propose to enter further. Their advisability

must be regulated by circumstances. When the position of an asso. becomes hopeless, there are now three courses before it. 1. Wind up. 2. Apply to the Court to reduce the contracts, under 22nd sec. of Life Assu. Cos. Act, 1870. 3. Amalgamate. We will only add an amalg. is a marriage—without limitation as to polygamy—subject to all the considerations of prudence, fitness, and financial resources, which such an event implies. The Court of Chancery, in the case of ill-assorted unions, performs the functions of the Divorce Court.

In the tables which we shall hereafter pub., we propose to include one showing all the amalg. and transfers of ins. asso. which have taken place. They number many hundreds. In the Life Assu. Cos. Act, 1870, there were the following special clauses relating to amalg. of life asso., which may have the effect of removing some of the legal impediments which have heretofore existed:

14. Where it is intended to amalg. two or more cos., or to transfer the life assu. bus. of one co. to another, the directors of any one or more of such cos. may apply to the Court, by petition, to sanction the proposed arrangement, notice of such application being pub. in the Gazette, and the Court, after hearing the directors and other persons whom it considers entitled to be heard upon the petition, may confirm the same if it is satisfied that no sufficient objection to the arrangement has been estab. Before any such application is made to the Court, a statement of the nature of the amalg. or trans., as the case may be, together with an abstract containing the material facts embodied in the agreement or deed under which such amalg. or trans. is proposed to be effected, and copies of the actuarial or other reports upon which such agreement or deed is founded, shall be forwarded to each policy-holder of both companies in case of amalg., or to each policy-holder of the transferred co, in case of transfer, by the same being transmitted in manner provided by section 136 of the Cos. Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, for the transmission to shareholders of notices not requiring to be served personally; and the agreement or deed under which such amalg, or trans. is effected shall be open for the inspection of the policy-holders and shareholders at the office or offices of the co. or cos. for a period of fifteen days after the issuing of the abstract herein provided.

The Court shall not sanction any amalg. or trans. in any case in which it appears to the Court that policy-holders representing one-tenth or more of the total amount assu. in any co. which it is proposed to amalg., or in any co. the bus. of which it is proposed to trans., dissent from such amalg, or trans. No co. shall amalg. with another, or trans. its bus. to another, unless such amalg. or trans. is confirmed by the Court in accordance with this section.

Provided always, that this section shall not apply in any case in which the business of any co. which is sought to be amalg. or trans, does not comprise the bus. of life assurance.

15. When an amalg. takes place between any cos., or when the bus. of one co. is trans. to another co., the combined co. or the purchasing co., as the case may be, shall, within ten days from the date of the completion of the amalg, or trans., deposit with the Board of Trade certified copies of statements of the assets and liabilities of the cos. concerned in such amalg. or trans., together with a statement of the nature and terms of the amalg. or trans., and a certified copy of the agreement or deed under which such amalg, or trans. is effected, and certified copies of the actuarial or other reports upon which such agreement or deed is founded; and the statement and agreement or deed of amalg, or trans. shall be accompanied by a declaration under the hand of the chairman of each co., and the principal managing officer of each co., that to the best of their belief every payment made or to be made to any person whatsoever on account of the said amalg. or trans. is therein fully set forth, and that no other payments beyond those set forth have been made or are to be made either in money, policies, bonds, valuable securities, or other property by or with the knowledge of any parties to the said amalg. or trans. Recent circumstances have tended to throw great distrust upon amalg. It cannot be doubted that both in the Albert and the European many of the amalg. were most ill advised, to use no more harsh term. But the real essential good of well-regulated amalg. is in no way disproved by these events. The abuse of the thing cannot enter into the argument. Thousands of families would at the present moment have been worse than uninsured, but for the judicious amalg. of the offices in which they orig. ins. with more prudently conducted and more powerful offices.

Two great lessons have come out of these recent events: one to shareholders of amalg. cos., who have on the whole fared much worse than policy-holders; this we shall discuss under DISSOLUTION of Ins. Asso. The other to policy-holders, which we shall discuss under the head of NOVATION. In the mean time the reader may turn back to ALBERT ARBITRATION; and RECONSTRUCTION will be considered under its proper head. [CONSTITUTION, LEGAL]. [OBJECTS.] [POWERS OF DIRECTORS.] AMAZON LIFE ASSU. AND LOAN CO. AND SICK BENEFIT SO. "for Life and Sick Assu. Annuities, Endow. etc." This asso. was founded in 1853. It had a very imposing set of officials: The Rt. Hon. Lord Erskine was Chairman; Mr. Robert George Weir, Man. and Act.; Bethel Henry Strousberg being Consulting Act. Among the features were: "Life assu. from £5 to £5,000." "Life pol. once granted never disputed." Sums from 2s. to 5s. per week in sickness to persons of both sexes from 9 to 15 years of age; from 5s. to 20s. from 15 to 55 years. "Medical advice, attendance, and medicines free." "Members free immediately." Apprentice fees for children," etc., etc. The asso. passed into liq. in the following year. Order made 10th Nov. 1854. Mr. R. P. Harding, liq. An important case arose out of the formation of the So. It is known as Blackburn's case. The leading points were as follows:


A prosp. was issued by the promoters of a co. described in the prosp. as the Amazon Life Assu. and Loan Co. and Sick Benefit So. An applicant for shares in it received in answer a letter headed, Amazon Life Assu. and Loan Co., and stating that in compliance with his application shares had been allotted him. He paid the deposits, and he received a certificate of shares in the Amazon Life Assu. and Loan Co. Afterwards, and before he did anything else, he discovered that so much of the orig, scheme as related to a Sick Benefit So. had been abandoned, and he repudiated the contract. It was held that he was entitled to do so, no binding contract ever having been entered into by him. In answer to the argument that the letter of allotment being headed only Amazon Life and Loan Co. gave him notice of the change in the nature of the Co., and that when he afterwards paid the deposit he accepted shares

in the new co., it was held, that notwithstanding the omission from the letter of the words "Sick Benefit So.," he might well believe that the Co., the shares of which had been allotted, was the same as that for whose shares he had applied. He had a right to take it, and might well take it for granted that what he had applied for he had obtained, and it was incumbent on those who offered him what he had not asked for to draw his attention to that circumstance.

This decision was reversed on appeal ; add. evidence being adduced; and the Court was satisfied that when Blackburn paid his deposit he must have known what shares he was taking. AMBIGUITY, doubtfulness, double-meaning, obscurity. It seems to be a rule with the Courts where any obscurity arises in the terms or conditions of a policy of ins. to interpret against the office on the ground prob. that as it provides the forms for its contracts, they should be rendered so clear as not to admit of more than one meaning. Some general rules have been estab. for special cases of this sort, which it will be useful to give here: It is a well-approved rule that where parties have used language which admits of two constructions, the one contrary to the apparent general intent, and the other consistent with it, the law assumes the later to be the true construction.-Chitty on Contracts.

So where the different parts of an instrument are inconsistent with each other, effect must be given to that part which is calculated to carry into effect the real intention; and that which would defeat it must be rejected. And where there are two clauses in a contract so totally repugnant to each other that they cannot stand together, the former shall be received, and the latter rejected.—Shep. Touchstone; Blackstone.

Ambiguity of language is, however, to be distinguished from unintelligibility and inaccuracy, for words cannot be said to be ambiguous, unless their signification seem doubtful and uncertain to persons of competent knowledge and skill to understand them.-Story on Contracts; Phillips on Evidence.

With regard to certain contracts, Parol Evidence is admitted under certain conditions to explain apparent inconsistencies. Policies of Ins. are of this class. [PAROL EVIDENCE.] AMENDMENT OF THE LAWS RELATING TO INS. Asso.-Of late years there have been numerous amendments in the laws relating to or affecting Ins. Asso. These will be all noted under their proper heads. It would be a great blessing if the numerous laws now relating to Ins. Asso. could be embodied in one general measure; but we see very little chance of this.

AMENTIA; defect of intellect, partial in imbeciles, complete in idiots.

AMERICA, BRITISH INS. OFFICES TRADING IN.-The first Agency for a Brit. Ins. Office in the U.S. was estab. by the Phenix Fire in N. Y. in 1805. Agencies were opened by this Co. in other American cities about this date. That for Philadelphia was closed in 1810; that for N.Y. in 1815. The agency in Charleston, and one or two others in the Southern States, continued until the commencement of the late war, when they died out. The Phonix has still remained indirectly interested in F. bus in the U.S. by way of re-ins. contract, and may prob. contribute some £50,000 to the recent losses in Chicago. In 1851 the Albion founded a Life branch in the U.S., and transacted a considerable bus. The branch was continued until the amalg. of the bus. of that Co. with the Eagle in 1857. See EAGLE.

In 1852 the International Life (then National Loan Fund) commenced bus. in the U.S., and acquired a considerable number of pol. In 1859 the Ins. Commissioners in the State of Massachusetts made an investigation into the affairs of the Co., and declared it to be insolvent to the extent of some £200,000. Its certificates were accordingly stopped in that State and N.Y. This was the first act under the American Ins. Laws which indicated to us on this side that the said Commissioners were "live men." The deposit made in the U.S has protected these pol. to a large extent. In 1868 the pol. were trans. to Hercules of Lond. ; in 1869 to the Prudential; and they have since been re-ins. with the Empire Mut., under arrangements conducted with great skill, and, we believe, satisfactorily to all parties.

In 1853 the British Commercial commenced bus. in the U.S., and continued it down to 1860, when its bus. in England was amalg. with the British Nation, and the affairs of the Co. became closed in America.

In the same year (1853) the Liverpool and Lond. founded a branch in the U.S. and speedily took a very influential position. For several years its managers were in some conflict with regard to the actual requirements of the U.S Ins. Law; but these have been amicably adjusted. We believe no Life bus. was trans. in the U.S. until 1859. On the 31st Dec. 1869, the financial position of the U.S. branch was as follows: Funds invested and in hand (5 dols. to £), £507,370; amount required to re-ins. Life pol. on American Experience, 44 p.c., £30,119; amount required to re-ins. ann. Fire risks at 40 p.c. of gross prems., £185,304; ditto perpetual F. pol. 95 p.c., £47,991; outstanding claims, etc., £26,722, making total liabilities £290,137; and leaving a surplus of £217,233. The total number of Life pol. in force was 247, ins. £223,377; Fire pol. in force, net, £23,837,473. The Life income was £6,545. The Fire income was £425,152.

By the terrible fire at Chicago, which has occurred while these pages are passing through the press, this Co. is said to have incurred very considerable losses; estimates range from £700,000 down to £400,000, prob. both exaggerations of the actual facts. Whatever the losses may be, they will be punctually discharged; and the credit of the Co. will remain untarnished.

In 1854 the Colonial Life commenced bus. in the U.S., and continued the same down to 1860. In 1861 the affairs of the agency were closed.

In 1855 the Royal founded several agencies in the U.S., which were not worked as a



« AnteriorContinuar »