Fleet-Mcginley Co. v. Bothwell

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from an order similar to the one from which an appeal was taken in the Standard Printing and Publishing Co. v. James W. Bothwell and others, receivers of the insolvent corporation, known as the Employers-’ Mutual Insurance & Service Company of Maryland, that had insured the claimant and many others against loss caused by strike. This case and the one just mentioned were selected by the claimants and the receivers as test cases, in which certain general rules- were asked for and obtained from the court below by which the receivers should be guided and controlled in the distribution of the fund in their hands. These two cases were selected because-, as thought by the claimants, all of the claims would fall within one or the other of the two classes represented by them respectively.

It was- thought by them, that because of the difference existing between the two cases and the classes represented by them, different rules would have to be made applicable to each. In the Standard Printing and Publishing Co. case, we considered very carefully and discussed the questions raised and we do not now feel called upon to discuss these questions again, as we fail to find in the two -eases such a difference as will make the rules applicable to one, inapplicable to the other. ³²⁶ There is, however, one question presented in this case that was not presented in the other, which relates to a contract made by the claimant for the publication of the Manufacturers’ Record. The record in this case discloses that the Fleet-McGinley Oo. had been printing the Manufacturers’ Record for a number of years with much profit to the company, but when the strike came, they were unable to continue its publication. Thereafter it was printed in Richmond, Va., until about August 1, 1921, when the Fleet-McGinley Oo. again secured the publication of it.

It was