The New York herald., 1869-06-24
INTERESTING DECISIONS m NEW YuR FIRE INSURANCE CASES
From the Gle,

Prom the Cleveland Leader. June 22I
In the Court OF Common Pleas before Judges
foote and PTenss, have just been decided the cases
of y. q. fausler vs. The American Exchange Fire
Insurance Company OF New York and same vs. The
Manhattan Fire Insurance Company of New York
These cases were quite interesting account OF the
description In the policies as applied TO the building
containing the property Insured.
The description was the same IN both policies and
read a. follows;-"On his stock OF merchandise
contained In the brick, metal roof store three
stories, situate on the easterly side OF Last River
street. No. SO, Cleveland, Ohio.n
The evidence showed that originally a three story
building, ninety feet deep, had been erected ON the
easterly side OF East River street; tnat later two
story building had been erected on Meadow street.
Immediately In the rear OF the building on River
street, that space OF twenty feet mad been lett be.
tween the two; that In material aud roofing they
were alike, and offered only In the number OF sto.
res; that some fifteen years ago they had been
thrown together making one store, with continuous
outside walls and an Office put IN the
open space, with skyiight overhead, thus
connecting tile two that the store had thus been
when the once heretofore connecting the two por.
lions OF the building torn away and the whole
a single room, with no obstruction from River TO
Medow street; that II was In this condition wnen
the plantln rented it and when the policies were
issued; that the building was numbered the River
street side, with no number on the Meadow street
side; tnat No. % River street known and under
stood az including the Whole building from street TO
street and was always 20 occupied.
Under this state OF facts the plaInur claimed that
by fair ana reasonaple % Interpretation the policy
the intention OF the parties 10 insure the whole stock
OF goods IN that store. The defense claim that by
cOnnlng the description TO the three story portion
OF the building the policy only covered that portion
OF the building. This was the main question in the
case.
Judge prentIss held:
That he language OF the description In the policies net be
considered embracing the socks Ia the portion
the building well that In the front portion o 4
the building the language, hs 81 ck Of merchandise
showed that not the Intention OF the 10.
.aIed de.srO. insure only part o. The
stock that the stock was n both front and also
the intefmedae portion of the room which, under the syi
deuce had been all considered embraced and occupied
one store, single and entire, known No. B East
street, With no number on separate OF the Meadow
street side and that therefore, although the
only two stories the description embraced the entire store
or building extending from street 10 street.
A judgment was rendered for the plaintiff against
both companies for the amount claimed, VIZ,
against the American Exchange Fire Insurance
Company tsA 10, and against the Manhattan Fire
Insurance Company s1,s23 20. Wiley a Cary and
~ L. Ierrill attorneys for plaiDuL y. Sewers vt.
tyrpey fQr defsRdanIs.