Pool v. Milwaukee Mechs.' Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1896 |
| Citation | 69 N.W. 65,94 Wis. 447 |
| Parties | POOL v. MILWAUKEE MECHANICS' INS. CO. POOL v. FARMERS' FIRE INS. CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeals from circuit court, Ashland county; John K. Parish, Judge.
Actions by Franklin J. Pool against the Milwaukee Mechanics' Insurance Company and the Farmers' Fire Insurance Company on policies of insurance. Judgment in each case for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Actions to recover on fire insurance policies. Such policies contain the following provisions: The policies covered a stock of dry goods consisting of such merchandise as is ordinarily kept for sale in a retail dry-goods store. Such stock was situated in a three-story brick building and basement. On the 29th day of April, 1894, plaintiff, for the purpose of freeing the goods from moths, used some “Johnson Fumigators,” so called. These fumigators consisted of blocks of sulphur in the form of cubes, each surrounded on all the surfaces but the top with some substance to prevent the molten sulphur from running, and having in the top surface a wick to facilitate igniting the sulphur. Four of the cubes, placed in a box about 4 inches square and 1 1/2 inches high, open at the top, were called a candle. The fumigators were used in the following manner: When the store was closed for the day,--that being about 9 o'clock p. m.,--there were placed in the basement two lots of the candles, one in what was called the “cloak room” and one in the “carpet room.” Each lot was put in an iron pan, placed on three thicknesses of wire door mats on the floor. On the ground floor several lots of fumigators were placed in substantially the same way. None of the goods were in the immediate vicinity of the fumigators so placed. After all were in place, they were lighted. Plaintiff's employés and the person of whom the fumigators were purchased, and under whose charge they were arranged, then left the building, and closed and locked the doors. That was between 9 and 10 o'clock. From the outside of the building, by looking through the windows, they watched the burning sulphur for some time, then all went away but one, who continued to watch till nearly 12 o'clock, at which time all the fumigators were apparently burned out, when he went home. After about half an hour the property was discovered to be on fire. Such fire caused the damage for which a recovery is sought under the policies. Defendants claimed, as a defense, that the use of the fumigators increased the hazard of loss by fire, and hence avoided the policies. After the fire A. B. Noble, local agent for the company, directed the damaged goods to be removed to the Colby House, a building across the street, where they could be inventoried, examined, taken care of, and the damage appraised. Noble had no other authority at this time than that of local agent. Later, duly-authorized adjusters adjusted the loss, in the course of which they agreed with plaintiff that the value of the goods saved was $10,000, and that his actual loss was $42,000. At the time of such adjustment of the loss, such adjusters had full knowledge of the use of the fumigators, and, when Noble directed the removal of the goods to the Colby House, he had such knowledge. It was claimed on the part of plaintiff that, if the use of the fumigators is sufficient to avoid the policies, the action of defendants' agents, as above set forth, with knowledge of such use, constitutes a waiver of the forfeiture. In the action against the Farmers' Fire Insurance Company, an application was made for a change of venue on the ground of the prejudice of the people, which was denied. There were some exceptions to the rulings of the court during the impaneling of the jury, which will be noted in the opinion. In each case there was a special verdict. The following are some of the questions and answers, numbered without reference to the numbers in the verdicts, which are found in both: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ramos
...to the defendant, the defendant has received all that Wisconsin law provides. See id. ¶50 Similarly, in Pool v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., 94 Wis. 447, 69 N.W. 65 (1896), this court held that where a circuit court errs in overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, a defendant is not e......
-
State v. Ferron
... ... , defense counsel and the circuit court instructed the voir dire pool on the defendant's constitutional rights. The circuit court then asked if ... Hendrickson, 106 Wis. 434, 82 N.W. 304 (1900); Pool v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., 94 Wis. 447, 69 ... Page 668 ... N.W. 65 (1896); ... ...
-
State v. Lindell
...added). Moreover, when the court brushed aside two "19th century" cases cited in the Ramos dissent, Pool v. Milwaukee Mechanics Ins. Co., 94 Wis. 447, 453, 69 N.W. 65 (1896), and Bergman v. Hendrickson, 106 Wis. 434, 82 N.W. 304 (1900), it was brushing aside cases that made explicit or impl......
-
State v. Kiernan
...should return to the approach taken by this court in Carthaus v. State, 78 Wis. 560, 47 N.W. 629 (1891), Pool v. Milwaukee Mechanics Insurance Company, 94 Wis. 447, 69 N.W. 65 (1896), Bergman v. Hendrickson, 106 Wis. 434, 82 N.W. 304 (1900), and also taken by the court of appeals in State v......