Liebenstein v. Aetna Ins. Co..

• Decision Date: 30 September 1867
• Citation: 45 Ill. 303,1867 WL 5272
• Parties: HENRY LIEBENSTEINv.AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

45 Ill. 303

1867 WL 5272 (Ill.)

HENRY LIEBENSTEIN

v.AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1867.

The facts in the case sufficiently appear in the opinion.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. ERASTUS S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. ROSENTHAL & PENCE and Mr. WILLIAM HOPKINS, for the appellant.

Mr. J. A. SLEEPER, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This case is in all respects identical with that of Liebenstein v. The Baltic Insurance Company, 45 Ill 301, and Same v. The Metropolitan Insurance Company of New York, post, p. 305, to which we refer for a statement of the facts, except, that the property insured, instead of being described as contained in the factory of appellant, as in those cases, was described as “contained in the two story frame building occupied by the assured as a chair manufactory, situated on the north side of Superior street,” etc. We had no hesitation in holding, in those cases, that the term “factory” included both the main building, in which the work was done, and the two story building ten feet distant, used for the engine and for a dry house, and that those policies covered the stock in both buildings. But the language of this policy is wholly different. The risk in this case was expressly taken on the lumber and stock contained in a certain frame building, and we cannot extend that risk so as to make it cover stock not contained in the specific building to which reference was had in the policy. The company might have been willing to have insured the stock in both buildings at the same rate, or they might have charged a higher rate for insurance on the rear building, on the ground that the presence of the engine and boilers there created a greater risk. But whether they would have insured on the stock in both buildings or not, at the same rate, they did, in fact, insure only on the stock in one of them. That was their contract, and by their contract their liability must be determined. It is like the case of Moadinger v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co., 2 Hall, N. Y. 490, where the court held, that a policy on a baker's stock “contained in a frame dwelling house and bake house, front and rear, situate at No. 17 Thames street,” did not cover flour stored in a shed leading from the bake-house to the front house.

The question, then, is, to which of these two buildings does the policy apply? All doubt is removed by the fact,...