Court Opinion

ID: 9637108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:57:19.429642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:37.469669
License: Public Domain

SIBLEY and HOLMES, Circuit Judges
(concurring).
We concur in the judgment of affirmance. We approve the opinion of Judge HUTCHESON, except the part which seems to 'say the trailer was a building within the meaning of the policy while attached to the automobile and traversing the highway. While so used, the risk of collapse, and perhaps of fire, would be very different. We think trailers as ordinarily used upon the roads would not be called buildings. The authorities cited relating to that term in burglary statutes are not in point in seeking the meaning of an accident policy. The case is much like that of a railway sleeping car, which in ordinary use would be called a vehicle and not a building, but when put aside and permanently used as a stationary dwelling or office or restaurant might be called a building. We go no further in this case than to hold this trailer, circumstanced as it was at the time of the fire, was a building within the meaning of the contract.