The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1882-04-14
Circuit Court Proceedings


Burroughs Brotherton VS.. Philemon Bush,
continued.
The Toledo and South Haven X. X. Co. vs.
William A. Phelps, continued
Lucretia Wood VS.. Philip Stuckuin. strick-
en- from calendar.
Oliver Elmore vs.. Henry Webb ct al. con-
tinued.
David Reynolds VS.. The Nj. c. X. r., judg
ment of non suit.
The People vs. jeremiah Drake ct al, con-
tinued.
CHANCRRY.
Lille b. Randall was divorced from George
w. for drunkenness.
Anna Kirchner said Christopher, her hus-
band, had been extremely cruel and had OBJ
tanned fraudulent divorce from her, for
which she was granted a divorce.
Augusta NJ. Van Brunt obtained "a divorce
from Frederick Van Brunt, on the grounds
of desertion.
Alice l.. Cox was divorced from Levi j.
Cox, cause drunkenness.
George Bass, who was charged with bur
and was complained of before Justice Mason
for vagrancy, and was sentenced to Ionia
for six months, on plea of guilty.
The following opinion was flied by Judge
Mills in the case of A.. II. Wildey VS.. The
Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Co.:
The plaintiff sues upon policy of insur-
ance issued to him by the defendant. 10 re-
cover for the loss by fire of horse harness.
cushion and blanket, which he alleges was
covered by said policy.
The policy was issued August 18th, 1879
and purports to insure the plaintiff against
loss or damage by fire or lightning, on his
personal farm property, i'll buildings and
on farm" to the amount of 81 100000.
Its facts show that the property destroyed
and for which recovery is sought, was not on
plaintiffs tjtI7n when burnt, but was i'll the
hotel barn connected with tho Clifton House
in the village of Paw Paw.
The plaintiffs son had driven to the vii
lage on pleasure and business combined, anC
had put his horse up III the hotel barn.
, The defendant claims that it is not liabl,
because the property at the time of the loss
was not upon plaintiffs farm, but was in tn,
barn aforesaid, and. because thereby the
companys risk had been increased.
Defendant insists that Sec. 3 of the BY
, Laws constitutes the statements contained
in the application for Insurance. warrant,
that the property upon which insurance il
sought, is and shall remain upon the prem
ises described therein, so long as it is covered
by the policy.
To give this effect to the contract entere,
into by these parties, and this effect To tina
Bylaw would render nearly all the policies
issued by this company, $50 far at least, n
they relate to personal property of the elias
covered by the policy i'll suit, invalid.
One great trouble is that the policy itsel
is specially designed and adapted for build
ings and not for live stock and movable per
sonal property in every day use. and contain
no provision limiting the use of such proper
ty TO the farm premises merely. There j
no warranty that the property shall Away
remain on the farm.
The policy undertakes to- insure agains
loss by lightning, and yet, under the con
struction asked by defendant, farmer
rod of his own premises, engaged in the OF
binary occupation of his vocation, could no
recover of the company if one or both of hi
horses were struck down by lightning.
The warranty applies, if at all, with equs
force to such a case OF course the illustra
n ton instances an extreme case, and yet
might easily occur. 1t often happens tina
extreme illustrations furnish the best test o
q the fallacy of the argument made.
Again it is undisputable that in most case
a large portion of the property covered b
9 the policy is not upon the farm at the tim
the contract of insurance is entered into,
horse, flock of sheep, cattle, and othe
animals and articles, either of farm utensi
% or farm products, and purchased or obtaine
by exchange, or raised upon the farm ther,
after. and yet such property would be covere
y by the policy.
This could not be 80 If the counsel for IL
PENDANT is correct.
W The policy in suit IL in the nature of VIII
IL known a. a blanket policy, and cannot