The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1895-03-09
A Carroll County Insurance Case.

In the Cont of Appeals Judge McSherry
ON Friday oflas week delivered the opinion.
reversing the Carroll County Court, in the
insurance case of Charles Schaeffer VS.. Farm
| ers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Dug
| Hill, Carroll county, Md. The lower court
had decided in favor of the in. france com
| pany.
The appellant tannery, bark mill and stock
IN trade which, with the property owned by
him, were insured under one and the same
| policy issued by the appellee. were destroyed
| by fire February 81, 1892. Due preliminary
proof Of loss was made and subsequently suit
was brought upon the policy to recover the
amount of insurance written on that portion
of the property which had been burned. Dur
ing the progress of the trial in the Circuit
Court for Carroll County five exceptions were
taken. The first, third and fourth bills of en-
ceptiOn relate to questions of evidence. and
the fifth to the several prayers presented by
both parties. The verdict and Judgment be-
ing against the plaintiff he appealed. The
defendant resisted the claim Of the plaintiff on
the ground that the unauthorized use by the
plaintiff of a steam engine located about fifty
feet away from the bark-mill. but connected
with the machinery in the latter bv Il leather
! band. worked a forfeiture of the policy under
the terms and conditions set forth On the
other hand. the plaintiff insists, first, that the
use of the steam engine for the purpose of
grinding bark did not cause forfeiture. and
secondly. that even if forfeiture did occur
the defendant unequivocally waived it.
at can scarcely be necessary to reatiirm,
SAYS the court, what has been so often and
SO uniformly decided-that forfeitures by mere
implication are never favored i'll the law. A
company which reSiSs. on the ground Of for
fixture, the payment of a loss against which
it has insured must show both that its policy
or written contract contains. either in express
terms or by clear implication, some provision
FORGETTING the policy in specified contingencies.
and also that the insured has brought himself
within the scope and conditions of that pro-
vision. The policy is a contract between the
insurer and the insured. and as they have
written it, and not otherwise. so courts mast
constre and enforce it. TO the policy. then.
and to all that forms part of il. must resort
he had to ascertain, not only when forfeiture
is. in fact provided for. but the conditions
and circumstances under which it becomes
applicable and effective.
For the error in rejecting the plaintiff ;
fourth and seventh prayers, and in granting
the defendant second prayer, the Judgment
of the lower court is reversed and Il new TRIAL
awarded. The fourth prayer had relation 10
the knowledge of the agent being the knowl-
edge of the company. The seventh referred
10 the insurance in different company. All
of the defendant prayers except the second
were rejected. and that one, the Court of APP
pealS SAYS. ought 10 have been refused. Its
vice is that il construes the policy" the court
adds. ITO mean that the use of the engine
under the circumstances stated of itself for
feited the policy We have reached differ