Farmers' Union Elevator Co. v. Syndicate Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1889
• Citation: 40 Minn. 152
• Parties: FARMERS' UNION ELEVATOR COMPANY <I>vs.</I> SYNDICATE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

40 Minn. 152

FARMERS' UNION ELEVATOR COMPANYvs.

SYNDICATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 31, 1889.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, where the action was tried by Lochren, J.

Lusk & Bunn, for appellant.

Benton, Plumley & Healy, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

This action is for the reformation of several policies of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, and for a recovery upon the policies so reformed. The plaintiff, owning and operating several grain elevators and warehouses situated at various places on the lines of the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba and of the Northern Pacific Railways, among which was an elevator at Hawley, upon the line of the last-named railroad, claims to have agreed with the defendant for insurance upon the grain in all of these elevators and warehouses. The defendant executed its policies, insuring the grain "contained in elevators and warehouses situate on the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railroad and branches, and the Northern Pacific Railroad, as per schedule herewith, as the same may be owned, controlled, or leased by the said assured." The schedule thus referred to, and which is a part of the policy, specifies elevators and warehouses at 18 different places, but does not include that at Hawley. The alleged mistake, in respect to which a reformation is sought, is the omission of Hawley from this schedule. By the decision of the court below the relief sought was allowed. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover upon the policies, without reformation, for the destruction of grain in the elevator at Hawley. The policy, by its plain terms, covered only the property designated in the schedule. The schedule, naming specifically the property insured, would prevail over a more general, but inconsistent, designation, although the latter were sufficient, if standing alone, to include the property in question. The important issue in the case, therefore, was whether there had been an agreement for insurance which embraced the property at Hawley; for a reformation of a written contract can be decreed only in case there has been an actual agreement which the writing fails to express. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v. Merriman, 35 Minn. 42, 49, (27 N. W. Rep. 199.)

We are of the opinion that upon the trial of that issue it was error to refuse to strike out the testimony of the plaintiff's witness Pettit as to conversations with Stevens. This related directly to the fact in issue as to the agreement of the parties prior to the issuing of the policies sought to be reformed. The transaction was between the plaintiff, through Pettit as its agent, and the defendant, acting solely through Stevens as its agent. Stevens had since died. It had been made to appear, after the evidence had been received under...