
    OLD VS. FARMER’S FIRE INS. CO.
    Where' the by-laws of an Insurance Gompany provided for notice of assessments by publication in a newspaper, a failure to pay. assessments after notice . iby publication, will defeat the right to recover upon the policy.
    Error to the Common Pleas of Berks Co. No. 72 Jan. T., ’84.
    On June 3rd, 1857, the plaintiff insured his barn and contents In the defendant Co. for $1,275. In Oct., 1866, the barn and contents were destroyed by fire, and this action was brought upon the policy to recover damages for the loss. The defendant upon the trial, alleged as a matter of defence, that the plaintiff had failed to pay his assessments, when due, and that such failure worked a forfeiture of his policy. The defendant under objection, was allowed to show, that notice of two assessments, which the plaintiff had not paid, were inserted in two German newspapers, published respectively in Berks and Lehigh Counties. The by-laws of the Company provided for notice by publication and on failure to pay, rights under the policy should be lost. The plaintiff alleged, that he had never seen the notice, and the question is, whether a newspaper publication of an assessment levied by Mutual Fire Ins. Co. is a sufficient notice to a member to work a forfeiture of his policy, in the event of his failing to pay suck assessment. The charge of the Court was to the effect that such failure to pay, defeated the right to recover, after the published notice.
    Verdict for defendant on the 5th Sept., 1882. The plaintiff then took a writ of error, complaining of the action of the Court in admitting the evidence, of the publications of the notice of .assessment, and also in the charge of the Court as stated.
    
      Messrs. F. L. Smith, H. Y. Kauffman, Frank P. Schell, Esqs., for plaintiff in error
    argued, that the action of the Court in •allowing newspaper publications to go to the jury, was error; Mutual Fire Ins. Co. vs. Hoff, 2 W. N. C. 41. Equity abhors a forfeiture; Brown vs. Vandergrift, 80 Penna. 143.
    
      Messrs. Wanner and Zieber, H. C. Reber and J. N. Ermentrout, Esqs., for defendant in error
    argued, that the by-laws of the ■company provided for the publication of notices of assessment, .and the collector of the Co. called upon Old, and demanded payment. Plaintiff cannot recover while in default; Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. vs. Rought, 97 Penna. 415; Crawford Co. Ins. Co. vs. Cochran, 88 Penna. 230; Washington Mutual Fire Ins. Co. vs. Rosenberger, 84 Penna. 373; Hummel’s Appeal, 78 Penna. 320. In the case of the Mutual Fire Ins. Co. vs. Hoff, 2 W. N. C. 41, cited by the plaintiff in error, the charter of the company did not contemplate, that publication in a newspaper, should be sufficient. Hnder the by-laws of this defendant, the mode of publication is plainly designated.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on 17th March, 1884, in the following opinion;

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff is a member of the company and as such was bound by the by-laws providing for the notice to be given for the payment of assessments. No doubt exists in regard to the assessments having been made in due form, and that payment thereof was not made. There was also evidence which justified the jury in finding that the plaintiff in error had actual notice of the assessments. We find no error in the assignments.

Judgment affirmed.  