, 1866-12-02
IMPORTANT DECISION BY THE SU-
PREME COURT,
Insurance Companies Held to Their
Policies Risks Not to be Es-
timated in Special Case by
General Testimony Of
Experts.
Necessities OF business to be Officially
Noticed by Companies in
lssuing PoIiclc4.

The following 10 the decision Of tho suprome
Court In the case Of Frcdesick Schmidt ct nl "a,
Tho Peoria Name Fire Insurance Company, Tho
opinion Is by Hon. G. B. lawrence, Judge. and
thu points decided include some Interesting fca-
tures Of insurance law, ncr 10 this latitude:
against the appel1ees upon policy OF fnsurauce
The policy eenansd ,he.e " Words! Sse sse Il
securely i1,bcdded In masonry fused ior heating
%a.et Saa and nads perfectly seease against aeci.
The policy vas 1erued on the 1e.h septsmoe,.
1864. II WAS found That ihe building vas de-
etoyed BY a1c 10 March, 1865, and that 1t The time
Of the fre there ware two sloscs IN the building,
It was also proved, that there had been no trc
In The stove on the ftrr door for eI:ht days prc.
y.ons to The destznstion Of the building; In the
o'clock In The morning and axtinguished Il. eight
OF halfpast eight n'e9oct in ths morning, and was
sH! ssveS sSa9 ,Ss Ths pst as ooaed about
.hs Sosds i d. Sollsy :6oSs s6ss''i aaetsd ted
sssty oa The p.rt Fsh ~ ihe assured hat thers
ehal! be no nrc during the coaanuaDcs oithe poll
ey except tho one under The kettle and that
On bchaf Of the appellant II Is inaiated hat ihese
words are what il called by some wIitcfs upon In.
surnnce an Affirmation as distinct from promis.
10 The condition Of tie property Al the time the
policy va ,, ,ssned: 1t q Question apoa vh!eh
insurance companies d,ctatc ie language Of tnelr
| own policies. which Is therefore to be Construed
nor, e1sonriy againet themselves, and can, they
tho future use of the property and do, BY IN &
poiiees setlese hssel1es rom Ill iiabiias: IL
sap es &C. oa 1ss
| lhese words are TO be construed in refeteuce 10
he then eoaditep oithe psopessy. Smith ~ lMleh
10 lus. Co., Come., ~; Csttn n. thu Spring
| held Irs. Co, l Srrn., i3a: Blood u. Howard
Fire 1ne Co., IL Cush ), 47A; rafferty, ys New
eonstl1es,oa y tse eause no violation iii o9 i III l.
| shown.
There If, however, another c!ause in the po,lcv
protection, Is ioIiosz: III sfter insaslnse y ei.
fccted, cilter by the original pocy> or liz TIC re-,
ncwa Hereof the risk b. Increased bE any means,
more hazaraons than Al The time Of insusluc such
insurance shall be void, and Of no more esect"
This Is ycFy material provision 10 The policy,
eiraet furnished b. counsel for appellant This
LANGUAGE admits Of 10 controversy as to ita Meau-
ing: and the only question under 1t fs, Was there
tush increased itsk IN consequence Of these stoyes
This coart held, ID Now England Fire Marine
Insurance Company vs. wetraore, O. III. 2i5. that
tie tue construction Of clause like this was that
the nolicy become imperative only while The tn.
rrcastA risk was In existence, ard when 1t termi-
'hs os se T. sod s
Oh hi, rosnt. and Eigen bT the court was in ha:-
1ooNy With this ruling. hat on the triat thc defend
ant WEE permitted. asainst the objections Of the
plaintiff, 10 call insurance agents as elpfrfS, and
ak 1hen, the following 9ucttiou:,
Z. From your experience and knowledge Of
sece, do ron think that the increase Of nscs Ia a
10 that tuildiag! ''@"''~~ >'' ''''
Neither the question or any Of tho evidence
given nnder it touched the tsne potnt af tbs case
| Tie point for The consideration Of the ju.y was
! not whether m increase Of the number Of drcs IN
I bo!ldfnE does Or does uot ordinarily Increase
the rsk, brl Whether. in the caec then briore the
con7t, The r1sk 10 the building at the time It was
DESTROYED, At u o'clock at night was OF was not
bad been no fire toE eirht days, and In tho other
none afIer 6t O'Clock Of the nsecedluc .naorn.ng,
Was !hc sisk 10 this particular building. at the
| time 1t was burned, greater IN consequence oi
The presence OF thrse etoses placed as they we:a
and used in the manner shown BY the witnesses
1hia va: Va aues,on ol tast to bs passed uEon hy
su1unce agents as 10 the general eject Of an Ia,
crcase Of Gres hai n reference to the facts Of this
rss,!eals. ssse W. arc Al loss to perceive o.
a. experts On a matter OF this kind, merely be,
causc they were insurance agents, units il a,
tas hs' ha in inc s"a,se o. thet IN!
apon na the sasjSef. p6ei e. If Sh1s isi
opinions "cre adm1eaahle At all tho real potnt 0
cpt,toressy VAS not inquired into. and the qnes
tione as asked aud ausHered tended to Mlslc1t
| the Jrrr.
There fs also another crror IN this record. The
/ appellee wna permitted 10 prose against the u
jectlnns If the plaintiff that thcgcnt who rtectet
The Insurance for tile FlafntlG virtually promirct
II Ills behalf ut the time ot taking out Tic policy
.h.1 tnsse ss,n1a hs 81 2iajfiEe r.. IN ''~ ''''''
This was obssonflr improper. The only tnetrr,
meat cxcented lJ eascr parry to this case Was th
= policy. That embodied their coCt:act. It bonn,
tic atsrsedzQo 10 do certain tAinga, but con
lained no exT:r>s *,,pnlatlon thai an additlona
DIRE +hpuld uGt be used.
! II IL now sought 10 Incorporate ycsba! sgset
4cnt to this effect Into i!.c contract This caunu
be done. The rieh's of The parties must he settle
! by tho policy. NiCcin.on Vs. nai, u Mass. "
Aston r.. McrcAa1ts' Insurance Company. i Hit
TO. This rviucucc was improper, and tho II
strEctian given for tho defendant lar Ills :,
lated ~ this evidence, wa> also improper II
Judgment must be reversed nnd the c1use fenlant