St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-06-28
HOUSE WAS VACANT,
And the Supreme Court
Held the Fire Insurance
Policy Void.
The Same Authority Sustains
a Damage Suit Against,
Lowry.
Criminal Prosecutions En-
gaging the Attention Of
Federal Courts.
Debt, Divorces and Damages
Cut Their Usual Wide
SWath.

Chief Justice Gilfillan, in deciding
the case. of James Moriarity, respond
ent, against The Home Insurance COM
pany, reverses the decision of the court
below. 1t is related that the plaintiff
was insured by the defendants policy
upon a certain dwelling house. The
policy contained among other conditions,
s.If the aforementioned premises shall
be occupied or used so as to increase
the risk, or become vacant or unOceu-
without notice to, and consent of. this
company in writing, or the risk be IN
creased by the erection or occupation or
neighboring buildings, or by any means
whatever within the control of the as
Sured, without the consent OF this
company Endorsed hereon, then and in
every such case this policy shall be
void"
The dwelling having become vacant
by tenant leaving, without notice. be-
fore the fire, the court below charged
the jury that if it became vacant by
means not within his control, then
plaintiff could recover.
1t will be seen that this raises the
question whether the words "by any
means whatever within the control OF
the assured" qualify the words. ..or
became vacant or unoccupied." The
chief Justice declares that it requires
very forced and unnatural construction
to give the words that effect, and con-
structIon that would not occur to any
one reading the policy for the purpose
of determining whether he would accept
il. Turning to the syllabus, the chief
justice says:
Under the conditions in policy OF
insurance that If the aforementioned
premises shall be occupied OF used so as
to increase the risk, or become vacant
or unoccuped without notice to and
consent of this company in writing, or
the risk be increased by any means
whatever within the control of the as
sured, without consent of this company
Endorsed hereon," the policy shall be
void, the words ''by any means what
ever" etc., do not qualify the words ''or
become vacant or unoccupied."
Zoe Roussan ct al. appellants vs. James
w. Norton ct al, respondents. Order and
Judgment affirmed. GILFIhLAN c. j.
Where an officer has authority to take
acknowledgements anywhere III the
state, the addition in the venue to the
certificate of wrong county, or where
there is no such county, will not affect
its validity.
Where deed and the acknowledge
ment are regular on their face. it Will
not impair the effect of the record that
the acknowledgment was i'll fact taken
before the deed was complete, as where
the name of the grantee or description
of the premises had not been inserted.
One purchasing real estate from one
appearing to be the owner, by the rec
ords in the registers Office, is not charge
able with notice that it is assessed for
taxation to another person.
On the question of the market OF sell
ing value Of the land, the opinion of
geological expert, not published nor
known so as to affect peoples estimate
of the value, that there is valuable stone
beneath the surface, is not admissible.
Possession of land, in order to be
notice of the possessor's rights, to one
who buys from the apparent record
owner, must be a present possession.
A former possession which has ceased,
though there still be evidence OF it on
the land, Will not suffice. And where
the possession is not shown by residence
on the land, it must be shown by acts
OF dominion over it, such as indicates
not mere casual entries, but continued
claim OF right.
Certain findings of fact held justified
by the evidence.
And certain facts and appearances on
the land, including the presence of
graves, some with grave stones bearing
the names of those buried, considered
and held not to be indication Of the
present continued exercise of dominion
over the land SO as to be notice to
purchaser from the record owner that
some other person claims it.