KEARY V. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N.
in the Eighth circuit, in the case of Waller v. NfYrlhern A88Ur. 00,,10 Fed. Rep. 232, under a similar clause, where the interest of the assured was that ota mortgagee in possession instead of being the general owner, that a failure to disclose that fact rendered the policy void. The interest .of the assured was a conditional one, and he was not the owner, whereas he· had stipulated that his interest was unconditional, and that he was the 801e. owner.· It seems to me clear upon principle, and I think the adjudged cases quite uniform in holding, that either a chattel or real-estate mortgage executed before or after the policy is issued, does not come within such a provision as that contained in the policy. I refer to a few of the leading Kronk v. Birmingham Ina. Co., 91 Pa. St. 300; Judge v. C0nnecticut 1'118.. 0>.,182 Mi1ss.521;(hrson.v. JerSflJ/Oity Ina. 00., 39 Amer. Rep. 584jf!Dmmerciallns.00. v..Spa/llJaneble, 52 Ill.53jHartford Ina. 00. v. Walsh, 54 IlL 164; Aurora F'ire Ina. 00. v. Eddy, 55 Ill. 213; Loy v. Harne Ina. 00., 24 Minn. 315; Smith v. Monmouth Ina. 00., 50 Me. 96; Shepherd v. Union Mut. Ina. Co., 38 N. H. 232; Byers v. Inaurance 00., 35 Ohio St. 606; Van Deusen-v. Charlcr Oak Ina.·Oo., 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 55. The plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for the sum of 81,098.30, with interest at 7 per cent. from September 30, 1885·',J ·. '
11. MU1'tJAL RESERVE FUND
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Mis8ouri. March 24, 1887.) 1.
Where a policy of insurance provides fol.' the payment of different sums to different parties. it is improper for the beneficiaries to join in one action to recover the several sums due. Where. however. all the beneficiaries have joined, and a demurrer to the petition has been sustained, it may be ordered that each plaintiff 1ile'his sepal.'ate petition upon his cause oj. action, and that the defendants be ruled to answer wIthout further service of process.
At Law. On demurrer to petition. W. B.Thompsoo andM. McKeag, for plaintiffs. ':w. C. &J.aa. C.JlYnes, for defendant.
BRElWER,J: This suit is on an insurance policy: for $10,000. The policy provides for .the payment of $2,000 to one party, $1 ,000 to an· other, and so on. All the different 'parties in interest, beneficiaries in the policy,haV'e joined in one actioD; and thedemurref'is on the ground Qf improper j'oinder cif causes of action. The petition sta.tes the condition :under' which the policy matured. It states the promise on the part of'thednsuranooicompany in one instrument to pay differentsnmsof mOney to parties. Of course; there maybe a unity of:
: FEDERAL REPORTER.
in the but there is no unity of interestin the relief desired..· If, for instance, one of these beneficiaries is' paid, the others/havano interest in and are not prejudiced by that payment; and he hasnodnterest in the 'nlorieywhich is due the' other-beneficiaries. Each oneliiu.i;a separate'interestJil'l' the money which bytrre terms of the policy. is payable to' him or,t6 he11; ,I think, therefore;' under'thepractice which obtains, and the rule laid down under the state. Code, the demurrer wHl'l:iave tObedlustaineck!,:But all the parties plaintiff are in court. The defeildant is iti::oourt.'H;All the causes of action are stated, and the order will so be and I think it is within the,power'of made, after sustaining thateaoh plaintiff may file his or herpetitioh upnnhisorHeica1.l.se of action, andwithout'other process all.swer within 30 days each petition. the defendant will 'be I may addtHiLt in this I11atter,' ,although my Brother THAYER sat with me on theberich, he tooK. no partin. the decision, it; beulg disposed of by myself alone. ', '
December 10,11, 1886.)
CUSTOMS DUTIES-REAPPRAISEMENT-RIGHTS OF IMPORTER.
The hits aright, to,b.e r when the. reapprltisers view his goodB, to'see that they are his good's, 'and to make such statements as ate pertinent to the case.
2. SAME-POWERS ,OF REAPPRAlIlERS..,.".WITNESSE8.
The reappraisement is an appraisal on view, and the reappraisers have the power to ascertain the value of. merchandise by reasonable ways and means, (Rev. U. S. § to determine what witnesses, if any, it is proper forthetn to examine. ..'
The merchant appraiser is not an "officer, ". Within the meanin/t of artiele " : 2, 2"o,f tl;i.6 .constitution of theUpited States.
SAME-,])XAOTJ;G.l\' OF FEE. , ," " " '
NOT AN "OFFICEJI,."
The.,e'xactiOll by the collector of !Customs, of the importer, of 8 :fee for the compensation of the merchant appraiser, is unauthorized by law.
The ,issue involved in this case was the legality of reappraisement proceedings before the United States general appraiser and merchant appraiser, at the port of New York, on April 8, 1886. ,The plaintiffs, C. A. Auffmordt & Co., imported from Bremen, per the steamer Main, certain manufactures of silk and cotton, which were entered at the customhouse at the ,port of New York 'on March 13, 1886. The value of the merchandisein the invoice was 6,249 francs 50 centimes. After deducting the charges as expressed:iri the invoice, it left the value at 5,977 francs 20 centimes. The plaintiffs,' at the time of making their entry, voluntarily added to the invoice value 1,092 francs 80, centimes, making theenteredvahie of the goods 7,070 francs. The collector of customs New York, upon an examination aq.d appraisal of the