Cook v. Cont'l Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 31 October 1879 |
Citation | 70 Mo. 610 |
Parties | COOK, Appellant, v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court.--HON. WM. T. WOOD, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Snoddy & Short for appellant, cited in argument Kelly v. Home Ins. Co., 2 Cent. Law Jour. 478; Ellington v. Moore, 17 Mo. 424; Poor v. Humboldt Ins. Co., 125 Mass. 274; s. c., 7 Ins. Law Jour. 874; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Smith, 3 Col. 422; s. c., 7 Ins. Law Jour. 140; American Ins. Co. v. Padfield, 78 Ill. 167; s. c., 4 Ins. Law Jour. 893; Chamberlain v. Ins. Co., 55 N. H. 249; Hill v. Equitable Fire Ins. Co., (N. H. Sup. Ct. 1877,) 6 Ins. Law Jour. 314; Harrington v. Fitchburg Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 124 Mass. 126; s. c., 6 Ins. Law Jour. 618; Livingston v. Stickles, 7 Hill 255; Catlin v. Springfield Ins. Co., 1 Sumn. 434; Breasted v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 4 Seld. 305; Ins. Co. v. Slaughter, 12 Wall. 404; Rann v. Home Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. 387; Reynolds v. Com. Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. 597; Hynds v. Schen. Ins. Co., 11 N. Y. 554; Commercial Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 64 Ill. 265.
G. G. Vest and Phillips & Jackson for respondent.
This is an action on a policy of insurance issued to plaintiff by defendant on the 14th day of February, 1873, on plaintiff's dwelling house in the city of Sedalia, by which defendant, in consideration of $45 paid by plaintiff, agreed to make good to her all such immediate loss or damage not exceeding $2,000, as should happen by fire to said house from the 14th day of February, 1873, at 12 o'clock noon to the 14th day of February, 1874, at 12 o'clock noon. On the 26th day of October, 1873, said property was totally destroyed by fire, and this action was to recover of defendant the amount for which the property was insured. A motion to set aside non-suit taken with leave was overruled, and plaintiff appealed. It was stipulated in the policy that: “If the premises become unoccupied without the assent of the company indorsed hereon, then, and in every such case, the policy shall be void.” What is the meaning of the term ““unoccupied” as employed in that clause of the policy? This is the principal question for determination. About two weeks before the fire the plaintiff went to Kansas City, Msssouri, to reside, and lived there until after the fire. She shipped a car load of her furniture to the latter place, and left about $300 worth in the house, and instructed one Barnard to sell it, except a bed-room set, and also to rent the house. Joseph Southwick was left in possession, with instructions to remain in possession and sleep in the house until he could rent it. DeLaney was to rent the house. Southwick went to Kansas City three or four days before, and was there when the fire occurred. He left no one in the house, but told DeLaney, with whom he left the keys, except the key of the room he had slept in, to take charge of the house and rent it if he could before he returned. The above is the testimony of plaintiff and Southwick. Her evidence is somewhat contradictory as to whom she gave authority to let the house.
On these facts the question arises, was the house unoocupied when it was burned? If it was, she was not entitled to recover. “Occupation of a dwelling house is living in it.” Paine v. Ag. Ins. Co., 5 N. Y. S. C. R. (Thomp. & Cook) 619. The facts were, that for more than thirty days before the loss, the shop was unoccupied for the business, but the tools and machinery were there, and the plaintiff's son went through the shop almost every day to see that everything was right. And an instruction that these facts did not constitute occupancy but that some practical use must have been made of the building, was approved by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. Counsel for appellant say that this case has been qualified, but as we have seen in Ashworth v. The Builders Ins. Co., 112 Mass. 422, it was cited in support of the doctrine enunciated there.
Applying the doctrines of the above cited cases to this, it is clear that, within the meaning of the clause under considerations, the premises insured...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Nelson v. Barnett
-
Fogle v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York
... ... defendant. The vacancy clause of the policy is valid and will ... be enforced according to its terms. Cook v. Insurance ... Co., 70 Mo. 610; Craig v. Springfield F. & M. Ins ... Co., 34 Mo.App. 481; Wheeler v. Phoenix Ins ... Co., 53 Mo.App. 446; ... ...
-
Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Buchanan
... ... 644; Halpin v. Phoenix Ins ... Co., 118 N.Y. 165, 174, 23 N.E. 482; Halpin v. Aetna ... Fire Ins. Co., 120 N.Y. 70, 23 N.E. 988; Cook v ... Continental Ins. Co., 70 Mo. 610, 35 Am.Rep. 438; ... American Ins. Co. v. Padfield, 78 Ill. 167; ... Bennett v. Agricultural Ins. Co., ... ...
-
Tiller v. The Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Billings
...Clearly, the house was vacant and unoccupied at the time of the fire, within the meaning of the policy. 19 Cyc, 730 and 731; Cook v. Insurance Co., 70 Mo. 610; Craig Insurance Co., 34 Mo.App. 481; Howard v. Insurance Co., 63 Mo.App. 116; Norman v. Insurance Co., 74 Mo.App. 459. (9) If the q......