The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1884-01-31
Supreme Court.

hI6eu Il. Widely rs. TIE Farmers Mutual
rare Insurance Go. Of Vdn Buren, Coun-
81.
Plaintiff sued to recover insurance on
horse, harness, cushion and blanket burned
on the 9th of October, 1881, at hotel barn
in the village of Paw Paw, near and within
one hundred feet of other buildings.
The defense was that the policy did not
cover this property when used and situated
as il was when destroyed
Defendant is Mutual Fire Insurance
Company, organized under the statute of
1873, and formed for the purpose of farm
insurance. The entire property insured
consisted of dwelling house and contents.
three barns and sheds and an item described
as follows: Personal farm property in
buildings and on farm $1,000" The property
burned, If insured at all, was part of the
item. No other description is given. and
the declaration, instead of describing the
property actually burned, AYERS the burning
of all the property described in the policy.
The statute, which is closely followed in
the articles of association, allows those COM
panies to insure dwelling houses, barns, ac-
comparing out-buildings and their contents.
farm implements, hay, grain, wool and other
products, live stock, wagons, carriages. har-
ness, household goods, wearing apparel. pro-
visions, musical instruments and Libraries,
being upon farms as farm property" The
articles allowed certain large tracts on the
edges of villages to be included as farms,
but the bylaws allowed no village property
to be insured within one hundred feet of
other buildings. They also provide for can
ceiling the insurance when the situation of
property Is so changed az to enhance the
.sscE Tho hal 4
and while holding that the risk was en-
HANGED, held that this was not done beyond
what was contemplated.
The question for decision is whether. un-
der our statute and the articles and bylaws,
property which is insured not specifically.
bat only as included in personal farm prop.
erty in buildings and on farm continues
covered by insurance, when it is used and
placed in a building remote from farm and
in village, where the place of custody could
not be insured by the defendant on any
term.
The case has been fully presented, and
some decisions have been cited. which, If the
facts were Just such as those before US, woulo
certainly lend force to plaintiffs arguments
But so far as we can gather from the state
ments in those cases they do not generally
If at all, resemble the present case in the
restrictions put on the power of the com
pany, or in the manner in which the prop
erty is described. When particular propert,
is specified as covered by the risk, it may wei
be held covered though moved elsewhere
unless there are clear provisions to the con
trary. But where property is only insured
as farm property, it may be so restricted az
TO raise very different presumptions.
The loss here was by burning, and tn,
only way in which live animals are likely Il
be burned is by the burning of such build
ings as shelter them, or such surrounding
as confne them. The situation of tn,
building is therefore, a very important con
sideration, because, where fire risks vary &C
oording TO location, il is not reasonable :,
hold that any risks were designed to b,
covered except such as correspond with thu
rates and conditions of insurance. Unde
the present record no power existed in tn,
officers of this company to insure any build
ings but farm buildings, or any property bu
farm property. The reason for this is man
ifest. The statute and the articles and by
laws limit the risks to such as are likely /,
be very safe, and will not allow the ordnar,
risks of close habitations to be taken. NJ
power is given to insure live stock generally