#### Brandt, Appellant, vs. The Berlin Farmers' Mutual Feuer *&*Blitz Versicherungs Company, Respondent.

*November*2

November *16, 1900.*

*Fire insurance: Property “ on premises.”*

At the time of the issuance of a fire insurance policy, under sec. 1931, Stats. 1898, covering hay and grain “ on premises,” the inshred had hay and grain on the premises mentioned in his application, and had no other premises. Afterwards, still retaining such premises and having hay and grain thereon, he rented a farm in another section, and his hay and grain on the latter were destroyed by fire. *Held,*that the policy did not cover such loss.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court' for Marathon county: *W. 0.*Silveethorn, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Defendant, a town mutual fire insurance company, on May 17, 1898, issued to plaintiff its policy, to run for five years, upon real and personal property, to wit: Dwelling house, $600; furniture and clothing, $100; surplus produce, •$25; stables, $60; hay, fifteen tons, $90; grain, $50; two horses, $132,— and other articles and stock. The policy was based upon an application in which the same items of property are set forth, and which contained the direction: “Exposures: DBerlinescribe the relative situations of the buildings to be insured, and all other dangers within seventy-five feet.” Also, “ Make a diagram of the situation upon the other side of this sheet.” The diagram was of section 32, town 30, *232range 6, divided into forty-acre parcels, upon which a stable and house were marked as in the S. W. *£*of the S. W. J. At date of policy and thereafter plaintiff owned and resided at the place designated on the plat, and had there articles equivalent to the descriptions in the policy and application. The following year he rented in addition the Bunneister farm, situated in section 30, something more than a mile away, and raised crops thereon, including hay and grain, which were stored in the buildings on the rented premises, and which on August 23, 1899, were destroyed by fire resulting from lightning, to an amount exceeding the items of hay and grain specified in the policy. The only question raised on appeal is whether the policy covered hay and grain so situated. The court directed a verdict for defendant, from judgment on which plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant there was a brief by *L.*Marohetti, attorney, and *Mylrea <&*Bird, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Marohetti*and *Mr. W. R. Mylrea.*

They cited *Bowers v.*Pomeroy, 21 Ohio St. 190; Anderson, Law Diet. “ Peemises;” Black, Law Diet.; *Sawyer v. Dodge Oo. M. Ins. Oo.*37 Wis. 503; *Noyes v. N. W. Nat. Ins. Go.*64 Wis. 415.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Bump, Ereutzer <& Bosenberry,*and oral argument by *M. B. Bosenberry.*

They cited *N. W. M. L. Ins. Go. v. Germcmia F. Ins. Oo.*40 Wis. 446; *Amos v. Fond du*lao, 46 Wis. 695; Joyce, Ins. § 1748 *et seq.; Meadv. Phenix Ins. Go.*158 Mass. 124; *Benton v. Farmers’ M. F. Ins. Oo.*102 Mich. 281.

Dodge, J.

Sec. 1931, Stats. 1898, prohibits town insurance companies from insuring “ any property other than detached dwellings and their contents; farm buildings and their contents; live stock in possession or running at large; farm products on premises, and farming implements.” This statute, of course, entered into and became part of every policy written by the respondent; and the present policy *233insures, therefore, “*hay on premises” and “grain on premises.” At the time of the policy, appellant had hay and grain on the premises mentioned in his application. At the time of the loss he had hay and grain on those premises, and also other hay and grain on other premises. It seems too obvious for much debate that the words *“*on premises,” by statute incorporated into the contract, if they have any force at all, must have been understood and intended to apply to the premises then in contemplation of the parties. At that time there was no room for ambiguity, for appellant had no other premises. The words are restrictive. But for them, a contract to insure appellant against loss by fire to his hay or grain would be personal, and not affected by considerations as to where the property might be. *Sawyer v. Dodge Co. M. Ins. Co.*37 Wis. 503. Thus understood, the contract, when written, insured hay and grain on those premises and nowhere else. Purchase or leasing of other premises by appellant a year afterwards could not change the meaning of the contract already in existence, when no such act was in contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting. The policy meant the same thing in August, 1899, as in May, 1898, and excluded from its terms farm produce elsewhere than on the premises in section 32. The ■construction contended for by appellant would give him insurance against double risk at the price paid for single risk by his fellow, policy holders,— a result too unfair and unreasonable to permit belief that either the policy or the statute contemplates it. The conclusion of the court below that appellant’s loss was not covered by the policy sued on was correct.

*By the*Oourt.— Judgment affirmed.