32�TOBER TEP,.M, 19??. Syllabus. 209 U. 8. the business thereof, where the party asking for the injunction has no clear right to it. This case has nothing in common with American ?%hool &c. v. McAnn?dty, 187 U. S. 94. There the Post Office Depart- ment was assuming to act under a statute giving it the power to refuse to deliver mail-matter to an individual guilty of fraud in his business, and this court held that the case made did not show that the plaintiff in error had been. guilty of any conduct that could be held to be a fraud under the statute under which the Post Office Department was acting. The department was, therefore, without jurisdiction to make the order, which was reversed in this court. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be ALLEMANNIA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITI?S - BURG v. FIREMEN'S INSUI1ANCE COMPANY OF BAL- TIMORE, TO THE USE OF WOLFE, RECEIVER. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. lB0. Argued M?u-ch 17, 18. l?08.--Dso/ded April Reinsurance has a well known meaning, and, as the usual compact of re- insurance has heen understood in the commemial world for many yea?, the liability of the reinsurer is not affected by.the insolvency of the ?- insured company or by the inability of the latter to fulfill its own con- tract? with the original insured; and in this c?m the compact, notwith- standing it refers to lnszes paid, will be construed to cover !o?ez pa.vabis by the reinsured company; and, in a suit by the moeiver of that compzny on the compact, the fact o! its insolvency and non-payment a/the risks reinsured do? not constitute a defend. 28 App. D.C. 330, affirmed.
�
