The sun., 1919-11-02
LEGAL POINTS FOR
AUTOMOBILE OWNER
Question Of Erecting Garage
and Points on Insurance Re-
Gently Decided.
NJ our LEGAL coRREspoNDpNr

ny OUR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT
ARTICLE ~.
Suburban development, no less phe-
nomenal than the development of the
automobile industry itself, is presenting
problems for the automobile owner. The
growing tendency to impose building
and other restrictions upon suburban
lot owners has created difficulties OF
distinctly practical character. driving
many a resident to the courts to secure
or protect what he understood to be the
absolutely Independent control OF his
property.
Automobiles are noisy; they cannot
be kept In the open, and the tendency in
providing shelter for them is one of
economy rather than one in the line OF
display or architectural symmetry.
on the other hand the whole scheme
OF suburban development is to provide
residence zones that will eliminate the
noise Of urban and other traffic and in
which building restrictions will prevent
the erection of structures that mar the
beauty or uniformity OF the development.
HfYet in the very nature of things the
Z automobile owner Is the very man who
y Kill most likely want to reside in the
subSrbs, and he must have a garage
for his machine as necessary outbuild-
ing of his residence. When making his
purchase Of lot he is made cognizant
of the existence of general restrictions
as to the character of buildings that may
be erected on his lot, and seeing no
specific reference to a garage he nat
urally assumes that his right to erect
one Is unimpaired. Just how far this
assumption is correct is one of the prob
lens with which several courts of the
country have been called upon to deal
In one case 1t was held that the erec-
tlon of a garage did not violate prohi-
bition against the erection Of a stable
private or otherwise" but that 1t did
violate another prohibition against the
erection of any other building than a
dwelling house with the usual outbuild-
ings appurtenant thereto. This decision
was reached in Massachusetts, and
similar ruling has been made in New
York:
It has likewise been held that the cree
ton of a public garage violates a re-
6triction against the erection OF build
\ ing for purpose (which shall be Often
eive to the neighborhood for residence
purposes"
In a very recent New York case the
ruling was made that the maintenance
of. a garage at Rockaway Beach in the
neighborhood occupied by summer resi-
>dences did not constitute nuisance In
I the legal sense so as to be subject to
abatement
In the absence of building restrictions
IN the deed the right to erect private
garage on ones premises is almost abso-
Lutte even though 1t may have detri-
mental effect upon adjoining property or
otherwise injure adjoining owners.
Among the recent decisions affecting
automobile insurance, the following are
of interest:
A policy insuring the automobile
against loss or damage by theft robbery
or pilferage does not protect the owner
against loss in the form of the dimuni-
ton in value of the machine by reason
of its use by one who wrongfully appro-
priated 1t, where the car was afterward
returned.
Where, as is usually the case. the
policy contains a stipulat ion that 1t is
issued upon the understanding that the
insured Is the absolute owner of the
car the insured will be unable to collect
on the policy in case of loss unless this
provision is complied with both as of
the time of the issuance of the policy
and also throughout the term of the
policy. Accordingly, II the car has
been bought on the time-payment PLAN
with a reservation OF title on the part
of the seller. or If, after the purchase
of the car, 1t is mortgaged as security
for a loan, this fact should be Endorsed
on the face Of the policy.
In another case the policy was held TO
be invalidated by the permanent removal
Of the machine from the garage referred
to in the policy to another garage with
out notice to the insurance company as
required by the policy.
A curious case occurred recently in
which It appeared that for some mex
plicable reason an insurance agent who
was applied to for a policy upon an
automobile placed the insurance with
an ordinary fire insurance company and
the company added to the usual form OF
fire policy a rider" protecting the
owner against loss from either fire or
accident.
After a loss occurred resulting from
both accident and fire It developed that
+ the insurance company had no author
fly, under it's charter, to insure prop
erty other than buildings or other struc-
lures attached to real estate, and the
company set this UP as a defence to a
suit on the policy. The court held that
the restrictions in the company's char
ter are binding upon an persons dealing
with II and that no recovery could be
had on the policy.