The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-06-18

depreciation inl value from the time OF
purchase to the time of fire, and the cash
value you findnot TO exceed in any case
the cost OF replacing the goods to the MS.
sured-that is 10 say the sum they would
have TO pay to replace the goods in the
same condition and at the same place by
goods OF like quality and character, in
other words. the fair market value Tor
cash at the time OF The fire. Whether
the freight, drayage, exchange, insurance
and cost OF distribution from sidewalk to
shelves or storeroom constitutes proper
element OF value is Tor you TO say on the
proof as a question OF fact what profit you
shall think fit TO deduct rs necessary TO
ascertain the cost or value OF the goods
sold out OF the stock between the date OF
the purchases, invoices or inventories and
the fire, to be deducted from the stock so
as 10 find what remained at the fire, is for
you to say. Whether plaintiffs estimate
ascertained, as they say they ascertained 1t,
Is the fair one, is for you to say; whether
the adjustors estimate OF the profit ascer-
tanned, rs they say they ascertained 1t, be
the fair one, is for you to say; or whether
the testimony OF other witnesses as to tho
profit of such business generally, is the
fair one, is for you to say. so rs to all
these elements OF value, or rs to all these
circumstances as affecting values, whether
of depreciation and reduction on the one
side, or appreciation and increase on the
other, as you have heard in the proof, II is
for you, as men OF affairs acquainted with
business and business methods, to say by
your verdict which Is fair and reasonable
to adopt TO ascertain the loss by estimating
the cash value. as have before defined II.
LABORATORY GOODS.
The plaintiff compounded medicines
known ms proprietary medicines. and sold
them TO the trade in large quantities. Fol-
lowing suggestion in Woods on Fire In
sunnce, the companies claim that only
the cost Of manufacture of such articles, as
they call ii. that is 20 say, only the cost OF
the raw materials and the labor used in
compromising should be allowed, and not
| the cash market value as compounded.
Mr.. Wood confesses there is no judicial
decision to support such suggestion, and
that IL seems imprachcable and difficult OF
operation. Ii seems to me impossible OF
operation. Scarcely any statistlcian can
calculate the precise COST OF manuiac-
tured article. 80 various are the elements
OF value, and 30 iluctrating the conditions
as TO time, place, circumstances, OF cost oil
materials, labor, taxes, insurance, interest
OF money invested, value OF ones own.
supervision or contribution TO the work
and the like 10 an almost indeiinable and
always varying extent. Ii a gratuitous as
sumption 10 suppose that the insured shall
| furnish all these as means OF reducing
the loss 10 the insurance company, except
alone the item OF labor. Ii is delusion
TO suppose that 10 allow the market value
OF a manufactured article 10 him who has
insured il Is insuring his profits because
he himself is the manufacturer. II he
should take ii 10 the insurer after manu-
facture by himself he could have its value
| insured, and why not beforehand or,
why is he any less 10 have that value than
| II he bought Il OF some other manufac-
| turer2 II one insure his house shall he
have less because, iorsooth, he Is
carpenter and owns sawmill
and can replace IL by his own labor and
out OF his own materials at less cost than
other people might replace II? | think
not. find that Mr. w. NJ. Ramsey, a
very eminent lawyer. rs a referee, sup
ports this view n against Mr.. Wood, and
agree with him and hold that the plain
tin' IL entitled 10 the cash market value
as in reference TO other goods. But OF
course II the compounds were in tanks or
otherwise incomplete at the fire. II is only
the cash value in the unfinished state that
YOU can allow Moreover, there isno plea
OF misrepresentation or conccalment here,
and the proof is that for many years the
plaintiff and its predecessors engaged
In this business aud presumably the insu-
rance companies knew OF II. Hence they
might have protected themselves by the
| A. a 4
iacturers' policy II they wished 10 confino
the loss as suggested. hut II is a delusion
10 call them manufacturers. They were
only druggists, and the compromising !.
only a mode OF selling drugs and medi
cines which were clearly insured by the
policy.
MERCHANDISE.
There Is a controversy NJ 10 whether Ger
tain articles called cartoons, aud per
haps others, are included In tho policy
under the designation OF their stool
OF merchandise, consisting principally
Of drugs, medicines, fancy goods. paints
oils, glass, and such other articles a
are usually kept for sale In wholesale
and prescription drug stores" II yoI
find from the evidence that the dis
! puted articles were reasonably kept n
part Of the essential belongings OF medi
J cincs when compounded for sale, the,
, would DO included and would DO for salt
as part OF the medicines; but II not be
longing TO a stock Of drugs aud not neccs
sary 10 bo used In their sale thcy woulC
, no, be- IL Is for you to say.
! On the whole these arc questions OF fac
all OF them for you 10 determine fairly an
: impartially, a. you have sworn 10 do.
, II only remains 10 say that We could nc
, have done justice 10 this controversy b
, dcyotng less timo 20 Il than We have done
. and that you should now take the case an
! determine Il according 10 the law aud th
: facts rs you find them.
1 when you suffer from dyspepsia, hear
h burn, malarial affections, kidney discas