General Rules. 66 con cover a hack in a repair shop one-eighth V. 962. 83.- A recovery for the loss of buildings upon one section cannot be had without a reformation of the policy, where it insures buildings upon another section. * Collins v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 44 Minn. 440; 20 Ins. L. J. 179; 46 N.W. Rep.906. 84.- An insurance company is not relieved from liability under a policy "on oil while contained in a tank" described, with its location, by the fact that the tank has been swept away from such location by a flood. *Western & A. Pipe Lines v. Home Ins. Co., 28 W. N. C. 347; 48 Phila. Leg. Int. 440; 22 Pitts. L. J. 105 (N. S.); 22 Atl. Rep. 665; 21 Ins. L. J. 24 (Pa.) 85.- Wearing apparel is not covered by a policy of insurance which describes it as contained in a certain building, where it is destroyed by fire several months after it has been removed therefrom to a place where the owner is for the time being residing. * Towne v. Philadelphia F. Asso., 27 Ill. App. 433. 2. DESCRIPTION. In trust or on commission. Manufactured or in process. As affected by business described. Other special cases-personal prop- Cross references. 87. General rules. Goods insured were described in the policy to be in dwelling house of insured; the insured had only the room, as a lodger, in which the goods were; held, correctly described within the condition that "the houses, buildings, or other places where goods are deposited and kept, shall be truly and accurately described," such condition relating to the construction of the house and not to the interest of the parties in it. Friedlander v. London Assurance Co., 1 M. & Rob. 171 (Eng.) 88.- Rule annexed to policy stated, that persons desirous of making insurance on buildings should state in writing the following particulars, to wit: "Of what materials the walls and roofs each are 86.- Policy covering vessel while constructed," etc. "And if any person “lying at anchor," with provision that shall cause the same to be described in the insurance is to become void if latter policy otherwise than as they really are, vacated, does not cover vessel while so as the same be charged at a lower prebeached, plugs withdrawn, and furniture mium than would otherwise be demanded, removed, being secured in its position by such insurance shall be of no force." cable and anchor, and except for occa- Held, that a misdescription would not sional visits of workmen practically aban- avoid the policy, unless a lower rate of doned. So properly determined as a ques-premium was charged in consequence of tion of law. Reid v. Lancaster Fire Ins. Co., 12 Ins. L. J. 108; 90 N. Y. 382. 86a. Cross references. Section one. Subd. X. Usage and custom. No. 6. Section four. Subd. II. Misrepresentation. No. 46. Section six. Subd. Lightning. No. 1 et seq. Section ten. Agent. Nos. 135, 185, 255. Section eleven. Renewal. No. 57. it, and whether such misdescription reduced the premium which would otherwise have been demanded, was a question of fact which the jury alone could decide. Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 2 Pet. 25 (U. S.) 89.- Prohibited use and occupation by a tenant, without knowledge of the assured, renders the policy void. Steinmetz v. Franklin F. Ins. Co., 6 Phil. 21, (Pa.) 90.- When assured holds policy upon goods in store, for which he holds ware Stocks in Trade. house receipts, in case of loss, it is not goods shipped, the port or place of loadnecessary to prove the actual identity ing or departure, and the names of the of the goods as described in the receipt, when it is shown that goods of the same character, kind and quantity were in the building in question at the time the policy was obtained and at the time of the fire. Wilson v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 19 L. C. Jurist 175 (Can.) 91.- When assured accepts policy without objection, or attempt to have any mistake corrected, he cannot recover if the description cannot be applied to the property burned. Goddard v. Monitor Ins. Co., 108 Mass. 56; Sowden v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 5 Tupper 290 (Can.) But see where a misdescription held not to avoid the policy. Quinlan v. Union Fire Ins. Co., 8 Ont. App. 376. 92. The facts that business of planing and sawing lumber is carried on in an adjoining building, and the shavings are conducted by a tube to the boiler room in building insured, and there used for fuel, do not change the nature of occupation of latter. Keeney v. Home Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 396. 93. In the absence of sufficient evidence of written description of property in the policy, court will assume that it is the same as contained in the application. Johnson v. Canada Farmers' Ins. Co., 28 Up. Can. C. P. 211. 93a. A forfeiture on ground of a misdescription is waived by a demand for a magistrate's certificate and an arbitration. Smith v. City of London Ins. Co., 11 Ont. 38; aff'd 14 Ont. App. 328; 15 Duval 69 (Can.) insured, and not to the means of transportation. *Kratzenstein V. Western Assur. Co., 5 L. R. A. 799; 116 N. Y. 54; 26 N. Y. S. Rep. 453; 22 N. East. Rep. 221. 96.- Where an insurance company defends an action on a policy on the ground of alleged misdescription of the property, the plaintiff is entitled to show that the company was fully apprised of every material fact concerning it, and that no fraud or concealment was practiced upon it. *Insurance Co. of Pa. v. O'Connell, 34 Ill. App. 357. 97. A temporary prohibited use or violation of a condition as to use, does not prevent a policy from reviving after such temporary use has ceased. Hinckley v. Germania Fire Ins Co., 14 Ins. L. J. 918; 140 Mass. 38. 98.- A single brief violation of the terms of a fire policy for the necessary work incidental to the preservation of the property insured will not constitute a breach of a condition prescribing the use of the premises. *Krug v. German Fire Ins. Co., 1 Pa. Adv. R. 162; 23 Atl. Rep. 572. 99.- No recovery can be had under a policy of insurance for destroyed property not described in the policy, in the absence of allegations that the company is estopped to deny that it is not described, or that it was omitted by mistake. tin v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 51 N. W. Rep. 29 (Iowa). * Mar 100.- For cases involving a construction of other special descriptions of property insured see Section One, Subd. XIII. Construction. 94. If an insurance company has issued a policy on premises in a hamlet or 101. Stocks in trade. Policy in favor collection of stores and houses, which it of a coach plater and cow keeper on his describes as a village," it is estopped 'stock in trade, household furniture, from denying that it is a village because linen, wearing apparel, and plate." The it is neither platted nor incorporated as fire consumed, among other things, a large such. *Russell v. Detroit Mutual Fire stock of linen drapery goods. Held, on Ins. Co., 45 N. W. Rep. 356; 80 Mich. 407. the maxim of "noscitur a sociis," that 95. In an insurance policy stating the policy intended household linen or that the company causes "the several persons indorsed thereon to be insured upon all kinds of lawful goods. laden on board the good vessel, . . . boat, . . . railroad, or carriage, for the several amounts and at the rates as herein indorsed," the words as herein indorsed" refer to the amount and rate charged, the 66 apparel, and did not cover the stock of linen goods. Watchorn v. Langford, 3 Camp. N. P. 422 (Eng.) 102.- Where policy read as follows: "One thousand dollars on his stock in trade, as a baker," etc.; Held, that the words "stock in trade" must have a more extended signification than when applied In Trust or on Commission. to the business of a merchant, and that in of goods, which he failed to do, presents this case, they covered all the tools and no defense. Travis v. Peabody Ins. Co., implements necessary for carrying on the 28 W. Va. 583. business of assured, and therefore included his horse and cart, as well as articles in his house. Moadinger v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co., 2 Hall 490 (N. Y.) 108.- A company is liable for loss of a horse, although acquired after date of policy, which insured "live stock," etc. Mills v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 37 Iowa 400. 103.- Where assured took out a policy 109.- When policy insures stock of of insurance against fire "on his goods, family groceries contained in a building stock in trade, etc., or on commission, or occupied as a meat and family grocery held in trust;” Held, that the policy covered store, and there is a prohibition against goods in stores, bought on joint account the use of the building as a retail liquor and sold for the mutual profit of the in-store, and also a clause providing that sured and another party, the insured nothing else than a distinct agreement being also in advance on the adventure. clearly expressed and indorsed upon the Held also, that insured was absolute owner of one-half of the goods in stores, and had an insurable interest in them, as "stock in trade," and also to cover his advances on the whole stock. Millaudon v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 8 La. 557. 104. The terins "on their stock of watches, watch trimmings," etc., held, to include the entire stock of plaintiff, including plate, silverware, and the tools of the trade, and such other goods as form part of similar stocks in Boston, all being covered by the comprehensive "etc." Crosby v. Franklin Ins. Co., 5 Gray 504 (Mass.) policy should be construed as a waiver of any condition or restriction, and building was used as a reta liquor store, held, that the fact that liquors were usually kept in a family grocery store did not prevent a forfeiture of the insurance. People's Ins. Co. v. Kuhn, 12 Heiskell 515 (Tenn.) 110.- Insurance on a stock of goods which is being constantly sold and replenished, covers the new purchases as they are made, provided they become part of the stock, from which the sales are to be made as from the other stock. Peoria M. & F. Ins. Co. v. Anapow, 51 Ill. 283; City Ins. Co. v. Mark, 45 Ill. 482; Butler v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 26 Grant Ch. 341 (Can.); Bates v. Equitable Ins. Co., 3 Cliff 215 (U. S. Cir.); American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Rothchild, 82 Ill. 166; Planters' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Engle, 52 Md. 468; Butler v. Standard Fire Ins. Co. 4 Tupper 391 (Can.) 105.- A policy of insurance on "stock in trade, being mostly chamber furniture in sets, and other articles usually kept by furniture dealers," based on an application which is made part of the contract for insurance on "household furniture, being my stock in trade, mostly chamber furniture in sets," covers paints and varnish used to finish the furniture, if usually 111. In trust or on commission. A kept by furniture dealers. And this not-policy on "merchandise generally and withstanding the assured, to a question without exception their own, or held by in the application as to whether any highly inflammable matter was kept in or near the premises, answered: "Not to my knowledge." Haley v. Dorchester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 Gray 545 (Mass.) them in trust, or on consignment,” in the warehouse of a commission and forwarding merchant, covers "household furniture, wearing apparel and books" received and held on deposit by the said firm subject 106.- An insurance on “merchandise" to the order of the owner; and such owner such as is usually kept in country stores, can recover his proportionate share of the is not void because hardware, china, glass-insurance money received by the said firm ware, looking glasses, etc., were not spe- under such policy. Siter v. Morrs, 13 Pa. cifically mentioned, if the articles were 218. such as are usually kept in country stores. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Updegraff, 43 Pa. 350. 112.- These words in a fire policy, "The property of the insured or held in trust," include cloth left with the assured 107.- A plea by defendant that plaint- to be manufactured into clothing. Stiliff promised to keep up his average stockwell v. Staples, 19 N. Y. 401. Machinery. 113.- The term "trust" is not the Ins. Co., 17 L. C. Jurist 281 (Can.) technical word, but applies to ordinary bailments, and covers a quantity of barrels held on storage. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Favorite, 49 Ill. 259; Home Ins. Co. v. Favorite, 46 Ill. 263. 117.- Cotton was stored in warehouse at various intervals, factor receiving for each lot deposited warehouse company's receipt specifying number of bales, date, and mark on bales. These receipts were 114.- Plaintiffs, as trustees of a rail-numbered; that for a deposit on 20th road, procured insurance on all their prop- June, 1221, and on 27th June, 1238. Polierty as such trustees, of whatever kind or cies of insurance were at once taken out wherever it may be, provided the prop-to cover particular number of bales deerty is on premises owned or occupied by posited, loss being made payable to waresaid trustees, and situate on their railroad house company as security for money adpremises in the city of Racine, Wiscon- vanced. On one policy was indorsed in sin." Held, to cover a dredge boat be- pencil in figures, 1221, and upon the other longing to the plaintiffs as trustees, in 1238. Held, that the insurance was specific their employ at Racine, attached to their and was intended to cover only the specific wharf, it being thereby in the plaintiffs' number of bales in each deposit. Hough possession, and annexed to the railroad v. People's Ins. Co., 36 Md. 398. premises. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Harmony F. & M. Ins. Co., 51 Barb. 33. Said in 41 N. Y. 619 to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. Dec., 1869. 118.- Policy describing property as "his own or held by him in trust," covers a piano left with assured for sale or to rent. Snow v. Carr, 61 Ala. 363. 115.- Policy insured "goods in trust 119. Machinery. Policy insured a or on commission for which they, the as- frame steam sawmill and a specific amount sured, are responsible." Assured had pur- on "boiler, engine, machinery, and beltchased the teas insured from an importer ing contained therein." There was a who indorsed to them the warrant in planing machine in the mill in a shed, on blank. Before the fire occurred assured the same floor with the machinery proper had resold the teas to customers and had of the saw mill, about twenty-five or thirty been paid for the same; the assured held, feet distant, but connected with it by however, the warrants on behalf of such belting and plainly visible. Company's customers but merely for the convenience agent, previous to issue of policy, inof paying, if required, expenses necessary spected the premises with a view to into clear the teas and payable by such cus-suring. Held, that the planing machine tomers. Held, that as the property in the was included in the term "machinery," teas had passed out of the assured, and as used in the policy. James River Ins. that the teas remained at purchasers' risk Co. v. Merritt, 47 Ala. 387. and not at the risk of the assured, who no 120.- The word "machinery longer had any interest in them, are re-all instruments intended to be operated sponsible to the purchasers in respect to them in case of the fire, and that such teas were therefore not covered, although it seems it might have been otherwise if the insurance had extended to goods in trust or on commission generally, and instead of being expressly limited to goods in trust or on commission for which the assured were responsible. North British Ins. Co. v. Moffatt, L. R. 7 C. P. 25 (Eng.) covers exclusively by machinery in business of assured, and which are so operated from time to time in regular and ordinary prosecution of the business referred to in the policy. Movable dies worked by a press, and when not in use deposited or kept on shelves apart from the press, may be included in the term machinery. Seavey v. Central Ins. Co., 111 Mass. 540. 121.- Where policy covered "machin116.- Policy covering oil, "his own, in ery" of a paper mill, held, that the word trust or on consignment," covers loss upon was used in its most comprehensive sense oil in warehouse for which warehouse re- and included all the machinery and the ceipts had been given in favor of one Rus-tools and implements used there with in ton, and by him assigned to the assured the manufacture of paper. Buchanan and upon which the assured had made v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. advances to Ruston. Stanton v. Etna 26. Manufactured or in Process 122. Manufactured or in process. Insurance on stock "manufactured or in process of manufacture covers raw or unmanufactured stock. Spratley v. Hartford Ins. Co., 1 Dillon 392 (U. S. Cir.) 123.-Policy on insured's "stock of clothing, manufactured and in process of manufacture," excluding liability for "loss for property owned by any other party," unless such interest is stated in the policy, does not cover cloth of another taken to be manufactured under an engagement that they were to be at insured's risk. Getchell v. Etna Ins. Co., 14 Allen 325 (Mass.) 124. As applied to buildings. Policy on a building described as a barn, which was an agricultural building, not strictly to be described as a barn, but would have been insured at the same rate. Description held substantially correct. Dobson v. Sotheby, 1 Moody & M. 90; 22 Eng. C. L. 481. 125.-"House" embraces everything appurtenant and necessary to the main building. Therefore, where a house is insured, and it evidently appears, from payment of the premium commensurate with the entire value of the whole, that a back building was included in the insurance, it will be considered as accessory to the main building, and hence embraced by the policy. Workman v. Insurance Co., 2 La. 507. works therein, £1,000; on engine house adjoining the mill, £200; on steam engine therein, £300; on logwood warehouse in which chopping dyewood is performed, communicating with the mill, £200; on warehouse on the other side of the mill, to the east side, merely for storing goods, £300." Held, that there was no ambiguity in the policy, and that evidence to show that it was intended to insure the machinery and gear in the logwood warehouse was inadmissible. Hare v. Barstow, 8 Jurist, 928 (Eng.) 128. A policy on an "unfinished house" does not cover woodwork prepared for that house, and deposited in an adjoining one, which was also insured. Ellmaker v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 5 Pa. 183. 129.- Buildings insured were called brick buildings, but above two first stories the walls were of joists filled in with brick four inches; Held, that there was no error in asking a builder this question: 'Would you consider these houses, and would they be called brick houses or not?" Mead v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 7 N. Y. 530. 130.— Description of building to be insured, was made by an agent of the company, who gave a written description of the property to the company, including a kitchen, which applicant intended to build, and which was built after issue of the policy and before the fire. If objection be taken by the company that the description of the kitchen building was erroneous, the insured may show, by verbal testimony, that it was in contemplation at time of making policy, and was therefore included in it, and may recover for the loss of it, and if it appear, by the evidence, that the additional building did not conform to the intention of the assured, as communicated to the agent of the company at time of application, the 126.- Policy of insurance against fire provided "that a misdescription of the materials and roofs of buildings, so that the same should be taken at a lower rate than if truly described, should avoid the policy." Assured minutely described the situation and construction of his brick ice house, surrounded and covered by wood, to the secretary, who, in reducing the description to writing, omitted to say anything concerning the outside wooden frames; and in an action on policy, company set up in defense a misdescription of variation would not of itself avoid the the premises in the policy. Held, that parol evidence was admissible to show that the building was truly described; and that the misdescription, if any, arose from the mistake of the secretary of the insurMoliere v. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co., 5 Rawle 342 (Pa.) ers. 127. Policy was for "£1,000 on oil mill; on fixed machinery and millright policy. It stands upon the principles of an alteration, and avoids the policy only in case the risk is thereby increased, which is a question of fact, to be determined by the jury. Perry Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 19 Pa. 45. 131.— Assuming the risk of a steam flouring mill, involves the assumption of those things fairly and properly connected |