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

In the Court of Appeals Judge MeShtftH
on Friday of last week delivered the "l,'h'IIn
reversing the Carroll County Court. II NE
insurance case of Charles Schaetfer vs. arm
crs' Mutual Fire Insurance Company "i '''2
Hill. Carroll county. Md The lower court
had decided in favor Of the In- rance '"''
pany. I..ol-
The appellant ; tannery. bark -mll aud >t"SA
in trade which. with the property owhe" ny
him. were insured under one and the SAM
policy issued by the appellee. were Destroy"
bv fire February -, 1892. Due prehhi'""'
nroof of loss was made and subsequently sun
was brought upon the policy Ia recover ,"'
amour. Of insurance written on that pn'll"n
of the property which had been burned l'ur
inc the progress of the trial in the 'lf''ll'
Court for Carroll County five exceptions were
taken. The first third and fourth bills "i eN,
ception relate To questions OF evidence. an"
the fifth to the several prayers presented ~
both parties The verdict aud judgment ne
inc against the plaintiff he Appealed. ne
defendant resisted the claim of the plaIniin On
the ground that the unauthorized use On lnt
plaintiff Of a steam engine located about my
feet away from the hark-mill. h"t connrcie"
with the machinery in the latter by a iealhSr'
band. worked forfeiture ct The policy n'iI''
the terms and conditions set forth. pn me
other hand. the plaintiff insists. first. ihai ihr
use of the steam engine for the purpose 81
grinding bark did not cause forfeiture. an"
secondly. that even II forfeiture dld occur
the defendant uequivocallv waived II.
1T can scarcely be urgr~sar, lee reaiuFh.
saws the court. what ha> been often and
50 uniformly decided-that tortriturc> 10y mere
implication are never favored ln the law \
cumuany which r.~i>1>. un the ground "t Ion
fixture. the payment ut loss against "inth
II has insured must show both that rs p"ite'
or written contract contains. either ma "Nprr~S
terms nr hv clear implication. some provision
fnrfciting the policy ju specified contingencies.
and also that the insured has brought himself
within the scope and conditions at that pm
vision. The policy s. "a contract between ia"
insurer and the insured. and a- they have
written IT, and uui otherwise, -u courts must
cnnsfruc and enforce II. To She po!l'N thea.
sud % al that lnrm> q par of o.. mt',t or~"rl
d.. nad 10 ascertain. not uuiy aheu tarlrlhF"
+, Ia fact. provided iDr, hHi the conditions
and circumstance, under which 70 hva"m"-
applicable and effective.
For the error ia rejecting 10, pialnth ,
fourth and seventh praycr~, nuo 'n granting
IN. defendant second PRAYER. the Judgment
afthr lower court b. reverend aud q new 'ffs'
awarded The fourth PRAYER had r'iait"n 9"
the knowledge ut the agent being Sac Sl'a"i.
edge OF tho company. The seventh rri-rr'-,.
tu ih,, insurance iu different y"muaHy, Al.
81 the defendant PRAYER except the -"'"ud
wen, rejected, and that One. ihr Cont OF NJ.
meals saws. Ought tu have been refused. lts
We, E. that ~ gnr-trfi"s fhg policy. Jh" court
a,i,,. 10 mean thar the ts-" "i the engine
under the circumstance stated Of 'r-eH for
f.i',-l che puhe, W. hs,e rra,a'ei "a tlf"r
.sr.t Fr..IH.rlr