As Affected by Agent's Acts or Knowledge. exhibitors;" held, that they must be carried on. 11 Hun 108 (N. Y.) 193.- An insurance company insuring property used in a business is presumed to have in mind the nature of the undertaking and the usual methods of doing the business. Authorities cited. Wheeler v. Traders' Ins. Co., 62 N. H. 326, 450; 15 Ins. L. J. 184. And it is error to reject evideemed to have been acquainted with the dence bearing upon this question. St. business to which the building was appro- | Nicholas Ins. Co. v. Merchants' Ins. Co., priated, the nature of the objects exhibited, and the means employed to exhibit them, and have intended to include in the risk such business and the employment of all such usual means; and that the use of fire and steam for the purpose of the exhibition of machinery, and the keeping of a restaurant, with liquors and cigars, and a kitchen with ovens, were all to be deemed parts of the exhibition, and did not defeat the insurance. Mayor, etc., of New York v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co., 10 Bosw. 537. Aff'd 39 N. Y. 45. 194. As affected by agent's acts or knowledge. Where it is shown that an insurance company prepared a policy of insurance after a careful examination of the insured premises by their own sur188.- An insurer taking a risk on a veyor, and with a full knowledge of the factory of any kind is presumed to know nature of the risk, any misdescription of the incidents and adjuncts appertaining the policy must be deemed the fault of the to it. In insuring a sulphuric acid manu- company, and the insured should not be factory, he is presumed to have contem-called upon to bear the consequences. plated the necessity of making nitric acid Benedict v. Ocean Ins. Co., 1 Daly 8; 31 as a part of the method. And when he N. Y. 389. has the premises inspected, he has notice of all that an expert should see, and can-pany who is authorized to issue policies, not set up the incapacity of his inspector. It seems that he has knowledge of the incompleteness of the buildings that are in process of erection. Washington Ins. Co. v. Davison et al., 30 Md. 91. 189.- The use or occupation of the premises insured by a prohibited business, trade or avocation, renders policy void without regard to the question of increase of risk. Matthews v. Queen City Ins. Co., 2 Cin. Supr. Ct. 109. 195.- An agent of an insurance com etc., may, after a policy has been delivered by him, and before the receipt of the premium, correct a misdescription in the name of the street on which the property insured is situated. Warner v. Peoria Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 14 Wis. 318. 196.- When getting insurance on his building used as a flax factory," the assured notified agent of his wish to put in machinery for rope making, and was told that "flax factory" was a broad enough 190.- When a policy is issued upon a term to embrace it. Held, rope making stock of goods in a specified business the being quite common and usual in such esunderwriter is presumed to know what tablishments, the agent's definition of goods are usually kept by those engaged "flax factory " was correct; also, an agent in that business. Hall v. Ins. Co. of N. authorized to take policies is empowered A., 58 N. Y. 292. And see No. 221 et seq. to give a construction to the written por191.- When new business is incidental tion, if no more, and if he misled the asto the general business done when the insured in procuring the policy, the comsurance was effected and agent hav-pany are estopped by his declaration. ing issued policy with full knowledge Aurora Fire Ins. Co. v. Eddy, 55 Ill. of the facts as to the use and occupation 213. of the premises, company is estopped from 197.- The applicant asked the agent setting up any defense predicated upon to come and see the premises some miles assured's omission to give formal notice. away, and, on the latter saying he was Brink v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 49 Vt. 442. well acquainted with them, informed him 192.- Company is presumed to know that the upper story was used as a billiard the business which is made the subject of room and the rest as a dwelling, when, in insurance, and for that reason to intend fact, there was also a billiard room and to protect what may properly appear to bar below. Held, the misdescription was constitute a portion of it, as it is usually not the act of the agent, which would es Admissibility of Parol Evidence. top the company. Sarsfield v. Metropol- 41 Minn. 299; 43 N. W. Rep. 378; 42 Balti. itan Ins. Co., 61 Barb. 479 (N. Y.) Underwriter 278; 19 Ins. L. J. 138. 202.- Where an insurance company has received the premium paid to its agent who made the contract, and has forwarded the policy, it is bound by the contract made by him, although by mistake it is not correctly stated in the policy. * Abraham v. North German Ins. Co., 19 Ins. L. J. 511; 40 Fed. Rep. 717. 203. Admissibility of parol evidence. Where policy is express as to the subject of the insurance, the court will not change the contract, and make one for the par 198.- Policy described the property as being occupied "as a dwelling and boarding house." The insurance was obtained through one Buckley, an agent of the company. The judge at the trial received evidence that he inspected the premises at the time of taking the application, and knew the manner in which they were thus used, .and left the question to the jury whether the parties themselves did not knowingly use the term "boarding house," to describe the very thing that was insured, and if they did in that view, the knowl-ties, and apply the insurance to chattels edge of the agent was material; that if agent, acting on his own knowledge, making his own survey, undertook to describe the building, it is his description of the risk, and if the company accepts it, it agrees that the term used shall describe the risk as it existed. Held, error, as the effect given to the testimony was to change the terms of the contract and reform it, and make another and a different contract; such facts cannot operate as an estoppel. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Martin, 11 Vroom 568 (N. J.) not insured, because the assured intended to insure them, nor admit parol evidence to alter its provisions. Holmes v. Charlestown Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 10 Met. 211 (Mass.) 204.- Parol testimony is admissible to establish the identity and extent of property covered by a policy of insurance. Roots v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 1 Disn. 138 (Ohio). 205.- Parol testimony is admissible to explain a latent ambiguity, in regard to the merchandise intended by the parties to be embraced in the policies. Storer v. Elliot Fire Ins. Co., 45 Me. 175. Y. 521. 199.- When the question as to whether a misdescription in the policy was the cause of the insurance being obtained at 206.- A latent ambiguity in a descripa less rate than it would otherwise be sub-tion is removable by parol testimony. ject to, it is permissible to ask the agent Bowman v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 59 N. of the company upon a trial, "what were the usual rates about the time the policy was issued upon the same kind of property?" and what he knew as to the actual rates charged at that time by other companies upon designated buildings, being of the same class. Martin v. Franklin Ins. Co., 13 Vroom 46 (N. J.) 200.- If a contract of insurance relates to one definite and distinct subject it cannot be turned into a contract for the insurance of another and different subject, on proof that the agent of the company by mistake described the wrong property in his application. * Sanders v. Cooper, 5 L. R. A. 638; 115 N. Y. 279; 26 N. Y. S. Rep. 272; 22 N. East. Rep. 212. 201.- An agent of an insurance company is presumed to be familiar with the construction of the building insured, as well as its divisions, manner of use, and description, and the company is bound by his knowledge. * Pettit v. State Ins. Co., 207.- Testimony of experts is not admissible to prove the meaning of the terms "Dry Goods and Groceries" in a place other than the one where policy was issued. As to whether such testimony would be admissible if connected with the place where policy was issued query? Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Francis, 52 Miss. 457. 208.- Blank form in use by a company may be sufficient secondary evidence of the conditions in original, but not of the description of the property, if company has kept no copy of the latter. Johnson v. Canada Farmers' Ins. Co., 28 Up. Can. C. P. 211. 209.- Oral evidence is admissible to show what property was intended to be covered by general language in policy. Snow v. Carr, 61 Ala. 363. Question for Jury - Other Special Cases-Personal Property. sible to show what the "contents" are; furniture and stock of a grocery" will not such testimony is competent to en-cover "linen and sheets," smuggled and able an application of the policy to its subject matter. Wheeler v. Traders' Ins. Co., 15 Ins. L. J. 184; 62 N. H. 326, 450. 211.- A policy of insurance which expresses in unambiguous terms that it covers the property itself cannot be varied by parol evidence that only a particular interest-as that of a warehousemanwas intended to be insured. *Lancaster Mills v. Merchants' Cotton Press & S. Co., 89 Tenn. 1; 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 423; 14 S. W. Rep. 317. 212. Questions for jury. The question whether "boots and shoes, hats and caps," are embraced in the term "dry goods," may be properly left to the jury, there being evidence of usage and custom and understanding of the terin in trade. Bassell v. American Fire Ins. Co., 2 Hughes 531 (U. S. Cir.) 213.-Whether spirituous liquors were included in the term "groceries," as used in a particular policy; held, a question of fact for the jury. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. DeGraff, 12 Mich. 124. secretly offered for sale. A watch, being a memorandum article, is not embraced in a policy on "furniture and wearing apparel," unless specially insured. Clary v. Protection Ins. Co., Wright 227 (Ohio). 66 217.- In a policy on a new bark now being built at Butler's ship yard at Baltimore;" held, that material and other work prepared to be put on it, and lying in the ship yard and in sail lofts therein, were not covered by the policy, until actually built in the bark. Mason v. Franklin Ins. Co., 12 Gill & John. 468 (Md.) 218. In case of an insurance upon a boat lying in winter quarters, jury may properly find that the use of a stove is reasonably included in the term "refitting risk in the spring,” which risk was covered by the terms of the policy. Lyon v. Stadacona Ins. Co., 44 Up. Can. Q. B. 472. 219.- A fishing scow may be shown by evidence of its use that it is substantially a "building" within the meaning and application of that word as governed by the terms and conditions of the policy in reference thereto. Enos v. Sun Ins. Co., 15 Ins. L. J. 138; 67 Cal. 621. 214. Whether the description in a policy covers or fairly describes the prop- 220.- A ship builder insured "on his erty intended to be insured, is a matter of stock of timber, including planks, futfact for the jury to determine, and the tocks, knees, locusts, standards and stagterms of the policy are to be reasonably ings." Held, that "locust capstans," partly construed with reference to the whole sub-prepared for the vessels which the insured ject matter. Tesson v. Atlantic Mutual was building, were covered and protected Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 33. by the policy. Webb v. National Fire Ins. Co., 2 Sandf. 497 (N. Y.) pistols and books. Rafael v. Nashville Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 7 La. An. 244. 222.- Policy on English, American and West India goods does not cover tea and nutmegs, they being neither. Huckins v. People's Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Fost. 238 (N. H.) 215. Other special cases-personal property. A policy on gasometers, and 221. A clause in a policy covering another on fixtures, "belonging to and jewelry and clothing, being stock in trade, rented by the company, placed or to be does not include such articles as musical placed in the buildings, stores and dwel-instruments, surgical instruments, guns, lings of subscribers;" held, to include all gasometers and fixtures erected and made after dates of the policies, as well as those existing and already placed at time policies issued; and although the value of the gasometers and fixtures at time of insurance, was respectively but $2,000 and $5,000, and at time of fire had been in- 223. The defendants insured the creased to $20,000 and $100,000, assured plaintiff on his stock in trade as a manwas yet entitled to recover all loss and ufacturer of brass clock works." Held, damage on any of them, not exceeding that this was a license to him to use amount insured. New York Gas Light all such articles as are ordinarily emCo. v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co., 2 Hall 108 ployed in that manufacture, and to keep (N. Y.) them on hand, and even to make them 216.- A policy on "wearing apparel, for that purpose, if it be the ordinary Other Special Cases-Personal Property. course of that trade to make them; al- a building, but only articles kept for though the use or keeping of such articles be prohibited by the printed terms of the policy as extra hazardous. Bryant v. Poughkeepsie Mut. Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 200; aff'g 21 Barb. 154. 224.- A policy insuring "all the articles making up the stock of a pork house, and all within the building and pertinent thereto," covers everything properly belonging to the stock of a pork house, without regard to the particular ownership of each and every article contained in or appurtenant to the building, and although clause in policy requires "goods on commission to be insured as such." Etna Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 16 B. Monroe 242 (Ky.) sale; but an open policy upon "property" contained in specific buildings will cover articles kept for use as well as those kept for sale. Burgess v. Alliance Ins. Co., 10 Allen, 221 (Mass.) 228.- Under an open policy express assent of company to the several risks is not requisite where it is shown to be waived by usual course of conduct in regard to previous shipments of goods covered by the same policy. When assured gives notice on a particular occasion, as he had done on all previous occasions, and the company assents by its silence as it had always theretofore done, the latter is bound. Edwards v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co., 1 Mo. App. 192. 229.- In an open policy a failure on part of the assured to comply with a stipulation or condition requiring him to make return or report of the subject matter of the insurance, renders the same void. Palmer v. Factors and Traders' Ins. Co., 11 Ins. L. J. 135; 33 La. An. 1336. /230.- An answer denying that the plaintiff was interested as alleged is not an admission that the plaintiff had on hand the quantity of wheat pleaded. Insur 225.- The property insured was described in the policy as "their road furniture, consisting of locomotive engines, cars of all descriptions, and snow plows, on the line of their road and in actual use, but not in machine or repair shops." The road insured was the Fitchburg road and its Charlestown branch, and the branch road was in the habit of carrying ice to the wharf, passing its cars over a "spur" railroad, which did not belong to the road insured, but to private individ-ance on so much wheat subject to asuals. On such an occasion, when the cars had remained over night on the "spur" to discharge into an ice house, the latter caught fire, which being communicated to the cars, destroyed them. Held, that it being in the usual course of the business of the assured to use their cars in this manner, the entire line became by adoption, to all practical purposes, their line of road, and the cars were in actual use upon "the line of their road" at the time of the loss by fire, and the road might recover for the loss of them. Fitchburg Railroad Co. v. Charlestown Mut. Ins. Co., 7 Gray, 64 (Mass.) 226. An insurance against fire, effected upon a certain quality of coal, covers not only the coals deposited at the time, but those deposited since, and covers also the risk arising from the spontaneous combustion of such coal. British American Ins. Co. v. Joseph, 9 Low. Can. 448. 227.- An open policy of insurance upon merchandise will not cover articles kept wholly or partially for use in and about sured's order in a warehouse. Held, it was not necessary to prove that the identical wheat was destroyed, but that the quantity claimed for must have been in the warehouse under control of the assured's vendor, during the whole period between the insurance and the fire; and although his vendor has fraudulently given receipts for more wheat than he really had, yet some of these having been extinguished, so that the quantity claimed by plaintiff was at all times in storage, the vendor's fraud on other parties could not be set up in answer to plaintiff's claim. Clark v. Western Ass. Co., 25 Up. Can., Q. B. 209. Other Special Cases-Personal Property. but which had not been offered for sale; vided that books and furniture "are not nor tools, implements or articles of prop- to be insured unless by special agreeerty purchased for use in the warehouses, as being necessary or convenient in the business, and which were used as occasion required. Kent v. Liverpool and London Ins. Co., 26 Ind. 294. ment." There were books and furniture contained in the freight buildings and destroyed, but they were not specially insured. Held, that assured could not recover for books and furniture. Id. 236.- Policy insuring a railroad company upon its wood and logs cut and piled along its line, does not cover and include such property belonging to other persons, and set on fire by sparks from the locomotives, and to whom the rail property, it being liable therefor. Monadnock R. R. Co. v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co., 113 Mass. 77. 238.- Policy covering "stock of hair, extend to fancy goods made of other materials, although such as are usually kept and sold in a retail hair store. Medina v. Builders' Mut. Ins. Co., 120 Mass. 225. 232.- Policy covered the "cattle and hogs, and the product of the same, and salt, cooperage, boxes and articles used in packing in their packing establishment, sheds and yards adjoining-their own, or held in trust or on commission." Held, that the words, "articles used in pack-road company has paid the value of such ing," applied to coal in the yard shown to be necessary to the packing business, the quantity being reasonable, coal being an article used in getting the "products." 237.- Policy covered grain, flour and One policy used the words, "articles used fixtures consisting of working tools. Held, for packing." Held, a wholly unsubstan- that paper bags were not covered by the tial difference. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Fa- term "tools." Hutchinson v. Niagara vorite, 49 Ill. 259; Home Ins. Co. v. Favor- | District Ins. Co., 39 Up. Can. Q. B. 483. ite, 46 Ill. 263. 233.-Policy insured steam barrel fac-wrought, raw and in process," does not tory, manufactured barrels and materials for the same therein. It contained provision that camphene or burning fluid, coal oil, petroleum, or any of their products by whatever name designated, unless otherwise specially provided for, if used company would not be liable for damages occasioned by such use. The assured, for the purpose of storing and 240. It is difficult to say as matter of painting empty barrels, used a certain law that "flax" is not included in the portion of the property in which at the term "grain," and question is one for jury time of the fire was a barrel of benzine, to determine. When policy covers “grain conceded to be one of the products of pe- in stacks," etc., parties must be presumed troleum, which was used in their busi- to have intended to include by the term ness. Held, that the word "materials" 'grain" flax in stack. Hewitt v. Watercould not be construed to cover the ben-town Fire Ins. Co., 10 Ins. L. J. 375; 55 zine, in the absence of proof that it was Iowa 323. usually or commonly used in the manufacture of barrels. The presumption as to knowledge of company of the use of an article in business insured extends only to such articles or materials as are necessarily and usually employed in connection with such business. McFarland v. Peabody Ins. Co., 6 W. Va. 425. 239.- The word guano may be shown to have been intended to cover and include fertilizer. Planters' Mut. Ins. Co. V. Engle, 52 Md. 468. 66 241.- A policy insuring "stocks, crops, and farming implements" against loss by storms as well as by fire, covers growing crops in the field as well as after put in stacks or barns. Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. De Haven, 16 Ins. L. J., 118; 18 W. N. C. 125 (Pa.) 241a. The phrase in a policy, "tools 234.- Policy insuring "freight cars used in manufacture of boots and shoes' owned or used by the railroad company" "includes patterns for making them. covers cars of another road in possession *Adams v. New York Bowery Ins. Co., and used by the assured. Commonwealth 51 N. W. Rep. 1,149 (Iowa.) v. Hide and Leather Ins. Co., 112 Mass. 136. 235.- Policy insured 'property in freight buildings." One of its terms pro 66 242.- A policy of fire insurance on eggs "in pickle" covers the eggs at any time while in store and undergoing the process |