John H. Gillett

The case Miller v. Pfeiffer concerned whether appellant H.W. Miller remained liable as a partner in H.W. Miller & Son for a $5,000 draft sent by appellees in January 1904, after his son had begun operating the business alone and using separate letterhead following May 1903. Appellees had previously dealt with shipments under the firm name and claimed no proper notice of any dissolution. The trial court instructed the jury that a retiring partner must provide actual personal notice to former customers to avoid liability. The appellate court held this instruction erroneous, as it did not account for evidence that appellees' agent had received information equivalent to actual notice of the changed arrangement and that formal notice is unnecessary if the customer already knows of the dissolution. The judgment was reversed with directions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint, with leave to amend, and to hold a new trial.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over a fire insurance policy that contained a standard condition rendering it void unless the insured held unconditional and sole ownership of the property or the building stood on land owned in fee simple, absent any contrary agreement endorsed on the policy. The majority held that the insurer could not enforce the ownership condition to deny coverage because it had not inquired about the insured's title or interest before issuing the policy and the insured had made no representations on the matter. The core reasoning was that the insured was not required to volunteer information on title (which is a matter of public record), that acceptance of the policy without inquiry constituted a waiver of the condition, and that the insurer could not later complain when no fraud or misrepresentation occurred. The dissent argued that the policy's plain language should be enforced as written and that the insured was bound by its terms regardless of whether they read it.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a dispute over a contract between a school board and a construction firm (John Krause & Co.) to build an annex to a school building and perform related improvements on the existing structure for a fixed sum. The firm had nearly completed the work when lightning struck the old building, destroying parts of it including a shared wall necessary for the annex; the firm refused to finish despite the board's offers to restore the old building, leading the board to sue on the performance bond and the firm to cross-claim for the contract balance and on quantum meruit. The trial court ruled for the board on its claim and against the firm on its cross-claims, but the appellate court reversed. The court held that neither party could recover because the accidental destruction by fire, without fault of either side, excused further performance, with losses to lie where they fell under principles such as res perit domino, as the contract did not specially allocate the risk of such an event.

business & regulatoryproperty