Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. Foley Bros.

Citation169 N.W. 793,141 Minn. 258
Decision Date20 December 1918
Docket NumberNo. 21032.,21032.
PartiesCOMMERCIAL UNION ASSUR. CO. et al. v. FOLEY BROS. et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hascal R. Brill, Judge.

Action by the Commercial Union Assurance Company and others against Foley Bros. and others. Demurrer to answer overruled, and plaintiff appeal. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

A stipulation, in a lease of a building for commercial purposes, exempting the lessor from liability for loss or injury to the goods of the lessee occasioned by a fire ‘howsoever coming upon or being within’ the leased premises, construed, and held to include a fire caused by the negligence of the lessor.

A stipulation of that kind, where unaffected by public interests or public policy, and not prohibited by statute, is valid and enforceable. Moore, Oppenheimer & Peterson, of St. Paul, for appellants.

Stringer & Seymour, of St. Paul, for respondents.

BROWN, C. J.

The facts in this case are substantially as follows: The Dickerman Investment Company, a corporation, was the owner of certain premises situated in the city of St. Paul, and known as 228-234 East Fourth street. The Dickerman Company leased the premises to the L. D. Coddon Company, and thereafter that company occupied the premises in the wholesale clothing trade. The Dickerman Company subsequently sold and conveyed the premises to the defendant Union Depot Company, to be used by that company in connection with adjoining property owned by it in the construction of a new depot building. After demolishing and removing an adjoining building, the defendant Foley Bros., employés of the depot company, started a fire for the purpose of burning the débris and rubbish left after the completion of the work, and the smoke and odors therefrom permeated the building occupied by the Coddon Company, and caused damage to the stock of clothing in the sum of $7,500. The stock was insured, and claim for the loss and damage so suffered was made, and there was an adjustment of the same, and the payment of the amount stated by the several insurance companies, plaintiffs in this action. Coddon Company claimed that the fire causing the damage was negligently started by defendants, and that they were liable for the loss. The company assigned its right of action therefor to plaintiffs, and they in turn brought this action against defendants for the damage so claimed to have been caused.

In the lease under which the Coddon Company held possession of the building there were two separate clauses, to be referred to more fully later in the opinion, by which it is claimed that the lessor, the Dickerman Investment Company, was released from liability for any and all damage to the lessee's stock of clothing which might be caused by fire ‘howsoever coming upon or being within said premises.’ Defendants have succeeded to all rights which the lease granted or secured to the Investment Company, and by their answer interposed the claimed exemption from liability in defense to the action. A demurrer to the answer, as not stating a defense was overruled by the court below, and plaintiff appealed.

The provisions of the lease relied upon by defendants appear in separate parts thereof and are as follows:

(1) ‘Said L. D. Coddon Company will make no claim against the lessor for or on account of any loss or damage sustained by water or fire howsoever coming or being within said premises.’

(2) ‘The lessor shall not be in any way or to any extent liable for any loss or damage to any property at any time at or within said leased premises, whether occasioned by fire or water or gas which may come or be therein or from any other cause whatsoever.’

It is contended by plaintiffs in support of the demurrer to the answer: (1) That the provisions of the lease quoted, properly construed, do not include or embrace damage or loss occasioned by a fire negligently started by the lessor or its representatives; and (2) if construed to include the negligence of the lessor, that the provisions are contrary to public policy and void. Neither contention can be sustained.

[1] 1. In determining the question whether the stipulations of the contract include an exemption from loss occasioned by the negligence of the lessor, recourse must be had to the contract as a whole, the subject-matter thereof, the general purpose the parties had in view and the natural meaning of the language used by them in expressing their intention. In that light we have no particular difficulty in sustaining the decision of the trial court to the effect that the language of the contract includes a fire occasioned by the negligence of the lessor. The authorities sustain that view in cases involving contracts where the exemption from liability is couched in general terms as in the case at bar. Hosmer v. Railroad Co., 156 Mass. 506, 31 N. E. 652;Day v. Mill Owners' Ins. Co., 70 Iowa, 710, 29 N. W. 443;Buchanan Lumber Co. v. East Jersey Coast Water Co., 71 N. J. Law,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Orme v. Atlas Gas & Oil Co., 33629.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 24 d5 Março d5 1944
    ...the objects and purposes to be accomplished, and the natural meaning of the language used in the lease. Commercial Union Assur. Co., Ltd., v. Foley Bros., 141 Minn. 258, 169 N.W. 793. Great weight should be given to the intention of the parties regarding the purpose of the lease. Conservati......
  • Orme v. Atlas Gas & Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 24 d5 Março d5 1944
    ......Commercial Union Assur. Co., Ltd., v. Foley Bros., 141 Minn. 258, 169 ......
  • Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical Contractors
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 13 d3 Outubro d3 1965
    ...in the injury and destruction of property spring ordinarily from negligence in some form.' Commercial Union Assur. Co. Ltd. v. Foley Brothers, 141 Minn. 258, 260, 169 N.W. 793, 794. A contrary view was expressed in Kansas City Stock Yards Co. v. A. Reich & Sons, supra, Mo., 250 S.W.2d at 69......
  • Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Poling, 49013
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 5 d2 Março d2 1957
    ...Fe, P. & P. R. Co. v. Grant Bros. Const. Co., 228 U.S. 177, 188-189, 33 S.Ct. 474, 57 L.Ed. 787, 793; Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. Foley Bros., 141 Minn. 258, 169 N.W. 793, 794; Kansas City Stock Yards Co. v. A. Reich & Sons, Mo., 250 S.W.2d 692, 698. See also Restatement Contracts, secti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT