Arlington Mfg. Co. v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1901
• Docket Number: 118.
• Citation: 107 F. 662
• Parties: ARLINGTON MFG. CO. v. NORWICH UNION FIRE INS. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

107 F. 662

ARLINGTON MFG. CO. v. NORWICH UNION FIRE INS. CO.

No. 118.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 3, 1901

George Richards and John G. Carlisle, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. B Ellison, for defendant in error.

Before WALLACE, Circuit Judge, and THOMAS, District Judge.

WALLACE Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was the plaintiff in the court below, and by its assignments of error impugns the rulings of the trial judge excluding evidence offered upon its behalf, and in not directing the jury to render a verdict in its favor for a part of the recovery sought in the action. The action was brought upon two policies issued by the defendant, dated respectively, January 31, 1898, and February 1, 1898, and each insuring the plaintiff against loss by fire in the sum of $5,000 for the term of one year. The property insured by the policies was described therein as follows:

'On property known as the Arlington Manufacturing Co. manufacturers of pyraline, a substitute for celluloid goods, situate in Arlington, Hudson county, New Jersey. Plan on file with Ward Phillips, 56-58 Pine street, New York, to which all numbers of buildings refer.'

'Buildings, Machinery, and Stock:

'On brick and frame buildings, sheds, additions, and attachments, marked Nos. 1 to 7, 9, and 11 to 16 (including smokestack), on plan; on fixed and movable machinery and machines of every description, and parts of same, engines, boilers, and connections, heating apparatus, fixtures, apparatus, office and factory furniture and fixtures of every description, safes, hose, automatic sprinkler equipment, dynamo, electric equipment, shafting, belting, pulleys, hangers, gearing, piping, pumps, hydraulic presses, tanks, dies, tools, implements of all kinds, patterns, utensils, and machinery supplies; on pyraline, manufactured, unmanufactured, and in process of manufacture, and materials of all kinds used in the manufacture of the same; and on all other property belonging to the business of the assured, their own, or held in trust or on commission, or sold but not delivered or removed,-- all contained in or attached to the above-described buildings, sheds, and building marked No. 10 on the plan.'

The policies also contained the usual co-insurance clause, and the following clause:

'Privileges:

'Privileged to use electric lights in the above-mentioned premises, to work nights when necessary, and to make additions, alterations, and repairs, and this policy to cover the same, and therein, and to use such materials and apparatus incidental to their business.'

It appeared upon the trial that at the date when the policies were issued the plan on file with Ward Phillips showed the various buildings then comprising the manufacturing establishment of the plaintiff, being a group of 16 separate buildings, numbered on said plan from 1 to 16, respectively. When the policies were issued, the plaintiff had commenced the erection of another building, located some 30 or 40 feet to the east of the building designated on the plan as No.

11, upon a vacant lot, which the plaintiff had purchased in the preceding August. This new building was of brick, 145 by 84 feet in dimensions. It was completed in March, 1898, and the machinery from No. 11 was then removed into it, and it was thereafter occupied and used by the plaintiff as a part of its manufactory until the time of the fire. It was not physically attached to or connected with any of the other buildings. The new building was not shown on the Ward Phillips plan. April 30, 3898, it and its contents were damaged by fire; the loss on the building being $7,664, on the machinery therein $9,319, and on the stock $24,231.

It appeared in evidence that for many years the plaintiff had carried insurance upon the buildings and plant of its manufacturing concern with a large number of underwriters that the different branches of its business were conducted in separate buildings; that new buildings were from time to time...