Gasner v. Metropolitan Ins. Co.

Decision Date01 January 1868
Citation13 Minn. 447
PartiesCHRISTIAN D. GASNER v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE CO.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

L. E. Thompson, for respondent

WILSON, C. J.

The defendant insured W. A. Arnold against damage by fire to "his one-story frame dwelling-house, situate detached on lot 7 of Colter's outlots to St. Paul, Minn." Arnold had, prior to the insurance, mortgaged the property to the plaintiff, to whom the loss, if any should accrue, was to be paid. The building having been destroyed by fire this action was brought on the policy of insurance to recover indemnity for the loss.

In the policy it is stipulated that "if the above-mentioned building at any time during the period for which this policy would otherwise continue in force, shall be used for the purpose of carrying on therein any trade or occupation * * * denominated hazardous, or extra hazardous, or specially hazardous, in the second class of the classes of hazards annexed to this policy, * * * from thenceforth, so long as the same shall be so used, this policy shall be of no force or effect."

In the second class of the class of hazards annexed to the policy under the head "specially hazardous," it is provided: "The following trade, occupation, and merchandise add to the rate of the building and its contents, 50 cents or more per $100, and to be covered must be specially written in the policy. * * * All workshops, manufacturing establishments, trades, and mills, not above enumerated as hazardous, or extra hazardous." It is further stipulated in the policy as follows: "This insurance as to the interest of the mortgagee only therein shall not be invalidated by any act or neglect of the mortgagor or owner of the property insured, nor by the occupation of the premises for purposes more hazardous than are permitted by this policy. It is also provided and agreed that the mortgagee shall notify the company of any change of ownership, or increase of hazard, not permitted by this policy to the mortgagor, or owner, as soon as the same shall come to his or her knowledge, and shall on reasonable demand pay the additional charge for the same according to the established scale rates," etc. Arnold in his testimony said "I considered it (the house) my dwelling. * * * The house was used to live in and prepare leather for the shoemakers. I used the most convenient...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Phenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn v. Omaha Loan & Trust Company
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1894
    ... ... alienation of the property by Crew avoided the policy ... (Hale v. Mechanics Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 6 Gray ... [Mass.], 169; Loring v. Manufacturers Ins. Co., 8 ... Gray [Mass.], 28; ... Co., 17 Wis. 389; Lawrence v ... Holyoke Ins. Co., 11 Allen [Mass.], 387; Gasner v ... Metropolitan Ins. Co., 13 Minn. 447; Chishom v ... Provincial Ins. Co., 20 U. C. C. P., ... ...
  • Warner v. Myrick
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1871

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