Lovewell v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1878 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Sewall K. Lovewell & others v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company. Same v. Relief Fire Insurance Company |
Argued November 22, 1877; November 23, 1877
Suffolk. Two actions of contract upon policies of insurance issued by the defendants respectively on the plaintiffs' "fixed and movable machinery, engine, lathes and tools," contained in the same building. The policy in the second case contained, in addition, the following provision, "this insurance does not apply to or cover jewels, plate, watches, musical or scientific instruments (piano-fortes in dwellings excepted,) ornaments, medals patterns, printed music, printed books, engravings, paintings, picture frames, sculpture, casts, models, or curiosities, unless particularly specified in this policy." The cases were tried together in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., who refused to rule that certain patterns were included in the word "tools" in the policies, and directed a verdict for the plaintiffs in each case only for the amount admitted to be due. The plaintiffs alleged exceptions. It was agreed that if the ruling was correct, judgment was to be entered on the verdicts; if the patterns were covered by the policies or either of them, judgment was to be entered for the loss on patterns in addition. So mach of the bill of exceptions as is necessary to the understanding of the point decided appears in the opinion.
Plaintiffs' entitled to judgment for the increased amount according to the terms of the agreement.
T. L. Livermore, for the plaintiffs.
A. Russ, (D. A. Dorr with him,) for the defendants.
The plaintiffs were manufacturers of machinery, parts of which were made of cast iron. They were obliged to keep themselves supplied with wooden patterns in order to make the iron castings necessary to the completion of their machines, and their practice was to send these patterns to the various foundries from which they procured the castings. The case turns upon the question whether a policy insuring "their fixed and movable machinery, engine, lathes and tools" can properly be held to include these wooden patterns. If the patterns can fairly be said to be tools, it is immaterial that, instead of using them at their workshop, the plaintiffs were in the habit of sending them to the foundries as occasion required.
It was correctly ruled at the trial that parol evidence was inadmissible for the purpose of showing that the parties intended to include the patterns under the general term "tools." There being no ambiguity in the terms of the policy, and no claim that its meaning was modified by any understood or established usage, it can only be construed according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language in which it is expressed.
The usual meaning of the word...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Furlong & Meloy v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co. of Edinburg & London
... ... NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY of Edinburgh and London, Appellant Supreme Court of Iowa, Des ... to recover for a loss under a policy of fire insurance ... Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendant ... Adams v. Fire Ins. Co., ... 85 Iowa 6, 51 N.W. 1149; Lovewell v. Fire Ins. Co., ... 124 Mass. 418 (26 Am. Rep. 671); Liverpool Ins. Co ... ...
-
Furlong v. N. British & Mercantile Ins. Co. of Edinburg & London
...were included as portions of the stock covered by the policy. Adams v. Fire Ins. Co., 85 Iowa, 6, 51 N. W. 1149;Lovewell v. Fire Ins. Co., 124 Mass. 418, 26 Am. Rep. 671;Liverpool Ins. Co. v. McNeill, 89 Fed. 131, 32 C. C. A. 173. 3. Certain telegrams relating to the sale of the goods cover......
-
Adams v. New York Bowery Fire Ins. Co.
...Under a policy containing the same provisions which appellant insists this does, “patterns” have been held to be “tools.” Lovewell v. Insurance Co., 124 Mass. 418. 9. Many other questions are discussed which we need not consider, in view of the conclusion heretofore reached. We have examine......
-
Excello Clothing Co. v. Marquette Nat. Fire Ins. Co.
...them. The language of the coverage is not the same as in the case at bar; nor are the circumstances. In Lovewell v. Westchester Ins. Co., 124 Mass. 418, 26 Am. Rep. 671, the coverage was on "fixed and movable machinery, engines, lathes, and tools," and patterns for casting were held include......