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

controlled in its operation by the narrow
construction sought to be placed upon it.
The policy is not intended to merely cover
such personal property as may be actually
upon the farm at the date of it's issue. but
such as may from time to time, during the
existence of the contract, he placed thereon.
Ii il plain the words 'on the farm" must
be construed with reference TO the property
to which they are applied, and that personal
property insured as ''on the farm when it
consists of carriages, horses, and the like,
must he considered az in use on the farm
and il must be presumed that the policy was
issued with reference TO the ordinary uses to
which such property il put. And that while
the words ION the farm are words relating
To the risk, and may constitute Il warranty
that the property upon which insurance il
sought is there or thereafter to be on the
farm, they mean only III law that the farm
is their headquarters, or place of deposit,
when not absent therefrom for temporary
purposes. incident to the ordinary uses and
enjoyment of such property.
The farmer has the right to use such
property for the ordinary purposes to which
il is usually put, and yet be AZ fully insured
Uses.
OF course the risk may sometimes be in
creased by such use and no doubt it was in
creased in the present case, but it was not
increased beyond the risk assumed by the
company which extended. as has been before
observed to the usual and ordinary use Of
such property, as was III this instance de-
stroyed, whether on the farm or temporarily
away from it.
Touching this question Mr.. May, in his
work on insurance, says "A farmer insures
his horses against loss by fire and lightning
for five years. and describes them as Kept on
his fdgm. This does not preclude him from
calling upon the insurers for any indemnity
if a loss happens of the farm. as when going
TO church or market, or to visit friend III
the neighborhood, or otherwise within the
ordinary range of uses TO which farmers GUS
tomarily put their horses. 1t cannot be sup
posed that in such u case IT is intended that
the insured shall get Il permit every time he
goes off his farm. So precarious an insur-
ance, one would hardly take the pains to oh
tain"
In Peterson w. The Miss. Valley Ins. Co.,
n case decided by the Supreme Court of
Iowa under policy which covered seven
horses, situated on section %, town 80. X. Z,
west" and which contained this condition.
"if the risk be increased by the erection OF
adjacent buildings, or by any other means
without the assent of the company, the
policy shall be void" substantially the
same provision as that contained III the
policy here sued upon the facts being that
the assured, a farmer, while hauling his grain
to market. stopped for the night at hotel
and put his team III a hotel barn, in which
the property was more exposed to fire thar
in its use on the farm of the assured. Dur
/. ing the night the barn was destroyed by fire
and with il one of the horses of the team
The court held that even though il appeared
that the company had not given its consent
to the use of the property off from Sec. 2:
il. was liable, and that the risk assumed by
it was not limited to the use of the horse
on Sec. 22 but extended to the usual ant
ordinary use of it, whether on tho farm OF
temporarily absent therefrom.
The same court, i'll Longeville w. The
Western Assurance Co, 81 Iowa 553, helt
that "A policy of insurance covering wearins
apparel, subjects the company to liabilit,
2 upon the property if, in the course of it
ordinary use, it be destroyed elsewhere thar
on the premises described in the policy"
The character of the property insured
must always be considered in determining
r the true construction of the policy.
In Mills w. The Farmers ms. Co., 3
Iowa 40l, the same court held, "Whero
policy of insurance covers live stock, TIN
S company is liable for a horse killed at
place not on the premises specified in tn
policy, if it was being used by the assured
i'll the ordinary course of business.
In Edward III. Holbrook VS.. st. Paul Fir
: and Marine ms Co., % Minnesota 229,
Z case in which the facts showed that polio.
was issued upon 81 mules, "all contained il
u the two-story framed barn (35xlO0 ft.) sit
a uate (detached) OH Sec. No. - town No. lac
range AZ, in Becker Co., Minnesota" Tn
mules were removed to a shed in anothe
county, and two miles from the barn de
e scribed i'll the policy. and were there de
stroyed by fire.
There was q condition in the policy tina
: if 1.-The risk be increased by erection or oc
y cupation of neighboring buildings, or by am
;, means whatever within the control of TN
5 insured, or if the premises become unoccu
pied without the consent of the company in
= dorsed hereou," the policy should be void.
U The court held that the words "all con
> tained in" are merely matter of description
for identification of the property insured
and not warranty that the mules shoul
remain in the barn, nor n condition that tn
u risk should cease if they We're taken out c
g it.
q The same doctrine was asserted III Everett
vs.. Continental ms Co., II Mimi, 76.
/ The same doctrine was substantially hel
q in Massachusetts Fitchburg Il. Il. Go. VI
Charlestown Ma. ms. Co., Gray Ga.
e And in Townsend Va. Northwestern In
y Co., 1877 New York 1GS.
e And in Sawyer vs.. The Dodge Count
&c Mutual ms. CO., 81 Wisconsin EOS.
These decisions impress me so strongly {
= to make my duty in the premises plain. =
q Judgment will be rendered in favor of III
y plaintiff, and against the defendant, fC
ID S108.00.
In the case of Henry Wilson against I'll
u same company in like state of facts, judl
ment was rendered in favor of the plainti
u for $4,000.
~ ALFRED j. MILLS. Circuit Judge.
rs