Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-08-21
SUPREME COURT.

SUPREME COURT.
FULL TEXT OF DECISION FILED.
Ed,card II. Holbrook, Respondent, as. The st.
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company Of
st. Paul, Ninn., appellant.
OPINION.
Action on policy of insurance against loss
by fire, issued to 1.-The Minnesota Land COM
pany" for $500 upon thirty-six mules, ''all
contained in the two story frame barn, (36x1O0
feet,) situate, (detached.) on section No. 49,
town No. 40, range No. 4s, in Becker county,
Minnesota s'Loss, if any, on above. payable
to E. 81. Holbrook, Jr., as his interest may APP
pear" The Minnesota Land company appears
to be an association which claims to be incor-
porated by the government of the Kingdom of
Holland, for the purpose solely of purchasing,
clearing and cultivating uncultivated lands in
this State, and was in possession of
five sections of land lying
| three in Becker and two in Clay county. In
cultivating said farm it was in possession of
and using the mules mentioned in the policy.
1t possessed and used the mules, made a con-
| tract with Holbrook by which in substance he
agreed to advance to it ST., 900, or SO much
| thereof as it should need to procure animals,
| seed and labor for putting in and harvesting
a crop of small grains upon 400 acres of said
| farm in the year 1876. The company was to
execute, and did execute its notes for the
amounts advanced, and part of such adj
vance Holbrook agreed to and did purchase
and turn over to it a lot of mules and cattle,
which were to remain the sole property of
Holbrook until the notes should be paid, and
when they. were paid, the title to the
| vest in the company. The company had the
| right to pillow 1000 acres with tn mules, and if
after the harvest of 1876, and before the notes
were paid 1T desired to pillow greater amount.
it had the right to do paying Holbrook for the
use of the mules the current notes for the adj
ditional blowing. Holbrook had the right to
use them in blowing for himself or others be-
tween the first of June and 18th of July. 1876,
he to return them to the company in as good
condition as when taken by him: and in case
the notes, or any of them, should not be paid
at maturity, he might take possession of and
sell the mules, or SO many thereof as
might be necessary, and after paying expenses
! of keeping and selling, credit the remainder of
the proceeds upon the notes. and if there should
be any surplus still remaining, pay the same to
i the company.
4 On the section described in the policy Zone
of the five comprising the farm,
there was barn such as therein described
and when the policy was issued the mules
!, were stabbed in that barn. On another section
of the farm, section thirteen, about two miles dis
!, tant from the barn, and in the county of Clay
there was shed. short time before the fire
the mules were for the purpose of blowing anC
of repairing the barn taken to section thirteen
and stabbed in. the she'd, and while there the
} loss occurred. There was condition in tn.
: policy that if ''the risk be increased by cree
x>F
by any means whatever within the control O.
the insured. or if the premises become unoccu
pied without the consent of the company en-
dorsed hereon" the policy 81 ,u,d /,
void; the court below tired the caus
without a jury and found in favor of plaintiff
and from an order denying new trial this APP
peal is brought.
The appellant makes these points that tn,
policy is void because the said company is no
) a corporations; that for the same reason it i
incapable of owning property in this State
and therefore had no insurable interest in tn
Y property insured.
, That it had no interest in the property be
. cause the contract between it and Holbrool
shows that it never owned it.
The policy covered the property only whicl
it was actually contained in the barn.
: That by the removal of the property iron
e the barn to the shed the risk was increased an,
+ the policy rendered void.
4 1t is claimed that the said compan.
] WAS not corporation becaus
! the government of the kingdom O
) Holland cannot create corporation solely t.
do business in Minnesota. We do not thinl
: the question is involved in the case, for tn
e reason that the purchasing and owning of per
sonal property and contracting for insuranc
J. upon it are not acts requiring corporate powers
r any association of individuals whether cor
e poration or only a partnership, may own sucl
p property and make such contracts, and ma,
DOT r. f-cr
: purpose. This company was doing bushes
$ under common name, and all its acts no
requiring corporate powers were good both TO
y it and against it as a partnership if it was no
a corporation. 1t was therefore immateria
v whether it was corporation or not
+ Although the contract between the pl1intif
and the company provides that until the pay
:, ment of its notes the title to the mules AM
cattle shall remain in the plaintiff, the com
!, pany had an interest in them. 1t had RICH
,, to possess and use them with the exception
n specified in the contract). The plaintiff Nigh
?. with that exception) take them from the com
q pany only upon default in the payment of th
. notes, and then only for the purpose of enfort
y ing such payment by sale of them, and ate
= such sale, first deducting the expenses. the pre-
y ceeds were to be credited to the company upo
Ii the notes, and if there was any surplus the
J. left it to be paid over to the company
,e The question is not as to the value of the ii
l. terest, but whether there any legal int
est to sustain the contract
insurance and to prevent til
policy being mere gambling contract Th
there was such an interest in the company VI
der the contract there can be no doubt. II
O. claim that the policy covered the mules on
while in the barn, that is that the words in Il
policy 'all contained in the two-story fran
barn." (36xl0O tt. situate detached in sectic
IN 10, town 40. range 49, in Becker county, Mi
De- nesota, limited the risk to the property viii
| n hh W
-. -. it should remain in the barn is determined
LII the decision in Everett VS.. The Continent
rs ms. Co.. 81 Mimi. rs, in which it was held tn
a clause with respect to the property insure
u "a threshing machine) ':stored in barn on Sc
IS ton 81, town 70, range 70, owned and insur.
y by L. L. Chafin was mere matter of descriptit
!, operating to indemnity the property and not
~ pronissory stipulation the part of the i
ne sured, condition Of insurance on the pa
he of the insurer, that the location mention
nj must remain unchanged, or if changed, til
~ while changed the insurance should cease or
" suspended Here the description is in sol
re respects more full than in that case, but it
pit still within the principle acted on in that CAT
SIS only matter of description identifcatio
Ial Policies of insurance, unless the language
en- cludes the presumption, must be presumed
he be made with reference to the character of t
~ property insured and to the owners use of
- in the ordinary manner and for the purpos
NC for which u.h property is ordinarily held a
le- used. Where the language is not too expG
. to admit OF it, the policy, SO far as regards
er- question whether it covers the property VIII
lid removed from the place where it is describ
ev as being at the date of the policy, is to be
~ terpreted upon this presumption. So langua
seS which occurring in policy upon property FRI
.is its character and in it's ordinary use kept p
Ia manently ana continuously in one place a
in stock of merchandise, or machinery in a bull
of ing or household furniture or things stor
no might perhaps be held to limit the risk to I
,ot property while in the place contained as
in scribed by the policy could not, without