Page images



“Groceries" may include liquors.

"Tools" used in manufacture of boots and shoes may be construed to cover patterns for making them.13

Guano" may include fertilizer.14
Grain in stacks" includes flax in stacks.15

“Eggs in pickle” may include those packed in crates awaiting shipment.

Wholesale stock of drugs, paints, and other goods not more hazardous” includes the whole stock.17

“Store” means shop and includes a bakery or restaurant.18

“Building" may be applied to a fishing scow on evidence of its use.19

“Stock of timber” may include locust capstans partly prepared for vessels in yard of shipbuilder.20

“Stock in trade," as baker may include tools, implements, horse and cart.21

“Machinery” may include machines, and movable dies,23 and tools and implements used in the business.24

“Steam sawmill” includes not only the building but machinery.25

“ Starch manufactory” includes fixtures necessary to the process. “ Building

includes cellar wall.27 " Steam farm engine " includes or covers any engine adapted to farm purposes.28


1. Davis v. Anchor Mut. Ins. Co., 96 Iowa, 70, 64 N. W. Rep. 687, 25 Ins. L. J. 299.

2. Reavis v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 78 Mo. App. 14.
3. Norris v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 65 Mo. App. 632.
4. Marsh Oil Co. v. Ætna Ins. Co., 79 Mo. App. 21.
5. Bowne v. Hartford Ins. Co., 46 Mo. App. 474.

6. Patrons' Society v. Hall, 19 Ind. App. 119, 49 N. E. Rep. 279.

7. Phænix Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 53 Ill. App. 273. 8. Cronin v. Fire Assoc., 112 Mich. 106, 70 N. W. Rep. 448.

[ocr errors]

9. Huston v. State Ins. Co., 100 Iowa, 402, 69 N. W. Rep. 674.

10. Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Allen, 119 Ala. 436, 24 So. Rep. 399, 28 Ins. L. J. 199; Hartwell v. California Ins. Co., 84 Me. 524, 24 Atl. Rep. 954.

11. Reynolds v. Iowa Ins. Co., 80 Iowa, 563, 46 N. W. Rep. 659.

12. Niagara Ins. Co. v. De Graff, 12 Mich. 124.

13. Adams v. N. Y. Bowery Ins. Co., 85 Iowa, 6, 51 N. W. Rep. 1149.

14. Planters' Ins. Co. v. Engle, 52 Md. 468.
15. Hewitt v. Watertown Ins. Co., 55 Iowa, 323.

16. Hall v. Concordia Ins. Co., 90 Mich. 403, 51 N. W. Rep. 524.

17. Wilson Drug Co. v. Phænix Assur. Co., 110 N. C. 350, 14 S. E. Rep. 790.

18. Richards v. Washington Ins. Co., 60 Mich. 420.
19. Enos v. Sun Ins. Co., 67 Cal. 621.
20. Webb v. National Ins. Co., 2 Sandf. 497.
21. Moadinger v. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 2 Hall, 490.
22. James River Ins. Co. v. Merritt, 47 Ala. 387.
23. Seavy v. Central Ins. Co., 111 Mass. 540.
24. Buchanan v. Exchange Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 26.

25. Bigler v. N. Y. Central Ins. Co., 20 Barb. 635, affd., 22 N. Y. 402.

26. Peoria Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 18 Ill. 553.

27. Ervin v. N. Y. Central Ins. Co., 3 T. & C. 213. And that description is liberally construed to cover or include. See also Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Darnall, 13 S. D. 279, 83 N. W. Rep. 266.

28. Wilson v. Union Mutual Ins. Co., Vt. 58 Atl. Rep. 799, 75 Vt. 320, 55 Atl. Rep. 662.

[ocr errors]

RULE 31. When Language Plain and Clear, Construction not Forced to

Favor Assured.

Construction of description is not arbitrarily forced in favor of an assured when language plain and clear:

“Machinery and implements used in business” do not include those carried in stock for sale.1

The words “usually kept” do not include property held in trust or on commission.2

“Grain in stack” does not include grain in barn.3

“Stock and materials” do not include retorts in a smelting plant."

“Other articles usually kept in a tailor's establishment” do not include patterns, as liability is not thereby specifically assumed under printed condition in regard to patterns."

“Lumber, lath, and pickets” do not include shingles, although if the word “lumber' alone is used it might be otherwise.

Decorations to walls and ceilings” do not include outside painting.?

Policy “on a bridge” does not cover loss of toll.

"Property in freight building” does not include articles which by printed condition must be specifically insured.

“Stock of hair manufactured or in process" does not include fancy goods made of other material, even though usually kept in a retail hair store.1

“Building permitted to be used for any mercantile purpose” does not include a restaurant.

Household furniture” does not include a watch.12

"Jewelry and clothing stock” does not include musical and surgical instruments, guns, pistols, and books. 13

“English, American, and West India goods” do not include tea and nutmegs. 14

“Merchandise” does not include tools and imple



ments. 15

“Materials” do not include benzine, unless commonly used in the business. 16

Wearing apparel, furniture, and stock” do not include linen and sheets smuggled and secretly offered for sale.17

“New bark now being built” does not include materials not put into bark.18

“Building, occupied as tannery” does not include engine and machinery.19

“Refined oil” does not include "lard oil." 20

“Implements of trade in a glue factory” do not include stationery and boxes.21

“Furniture, instruments, appliances, and material incidental to a dental office" do not include dental books.22

1. Michel v. American Central Ins. Co., 17 App. Div. 87, 44 V. Y. Supp. 832.

2. Corkery v. Security Ins. Co., 99 Iowa, 382, 68 N. W. Rep. 192, 26 Ins. L. J. 331.

3. Benton v. Farmers' Mutual Ins. Co., 102 Mich. 281, 60 N. W. Rep. 691.

4. American Smelter Co. v. Providence-Washington Ins. Co., 64 Mo. App. 438.

5. Johnston v. Niagara Ins. Co., 118 N. C. 643, 24 S. E. Rep. 424, 25 Ins. L. J. 558.

6. West Branch Lumbermen’s Exchange v. American Ins. Co., 183 Pa. St. 366, 38 Atl. Rep. 1081, 27 Ins. L. J. 305.

7. Sherlock v. German-American Ins. Co., 21 App. Div. 18, 47 N. Y. Supp. 315.

8. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. New Holland Turnpike Co., 122 Pa. St. 37, 15 Atl. Rep. 563.

9. Commonwealth v. Hide & Leather Ins. Co., 112 Mass. 136. 10. Medina v. Builders’ Ins. Co., 120 Mass. 225.

11. Garretson v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 81 Iowa, 727, 45 N. W. Rep. 1047.

12. Clary v. Protection Ins. Co., Wright (Ohio), 228.
13. Rafael v. Nashville Ins. Co., 7 La. Ann. 244.
14. Huckins v. People's Ins. Co., 11 Fost. (N. H.) 238.
15. Kent v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 26 Ind. 294.
16. McFarland v. Peabody Ins. Co., 6 W. Va. 425.
17. Clary v. Protection Ins. Co., Wright (Ohio), 227.

[ocr errors]

18. Mason v. Franklin Ins. Co., 12 Gill & J. (Md.) 468.
19. Sunderlin 0. Ætna Ins. Co., 18 Hun, 522.
20. Weisenburger v. Harmony Ins. Co., 56 Pa. St. 442.

21. Stemmer v. Scottish Ins. Co., 33 Oreg. 65, 53 Pac. Rep. 498, 27 Ing. L. J. 992.

22, American Ing. Co. v. Bell (Tex. Civ. App.), 75 S. W. Rep. 319,


Direct Loss or Damage by Fire.

RULE 1. Loss or damage by fire as imposed by contract.

2. Meaning of direct loss or damage by fire - Proximate

[ocr errors]


3. What is proximate cause.
4. Damage and expense caused in removing property

when endangered by fire.
5. Fall of wall after fire.
6. What loss or damage by fire includes.
7. Smoke and steam - Overheating.
8. Destruction or damage caused by insured after fire.

[ocr errors]


Loss or Damage by Fire as Imposed by Contract.

The assured is insured against all direct loss or damage by fire, except as provided otherwise in the policy.

This rule is imposed by above terms in the standard form of policy prescribed in: New York,

North Carolina,

North Dakota,


Rhode Island,

New Jersey,

* See note to “Duty to Save and Preserve Property,” Rule 1,

page 2.

« PreviousContinue »