Schaffer v. Hampton Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 28278.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 28278.,28278. |
| Citation | 235 N.W. 618,183 Minn. 101 |
| Parties | SCHAFFER v. HAMPTON FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS. CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Dakota County; W. A. Schultz, Judge.
Action by Henry Schaffer against the Hampton Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company. From an order denying defendant's motion for a judgment non obstante or a new trial after a verdict for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and a new trial granted.
D. L. Grannis, of South St. Paul, for appellant.
Albert Schaller and Kueffner & Marks, all of St. Paul, for respondent.
Plaintiff had a verdict in a suit upon two fire insurance policies issued by defendant, covering two barns, shed, and silos on his farm, which were damaged or destroyed in a fire occurring on the evening of December 17, 1928. A motion for judgment non obstante or a new trial was denied, and defendant appeals.
Of the two barns destroyed, the smaller was the westerly in which the fire started. The evidence is conclusive that at the time of the fire distillation of alcohol was carried on in the smaller barn. A great number of neighboring farmers called to help extinguish the fire testified to seeing stoves on the floor of the barn with coal fires burning, a twelve-burner gasoline stove with tubing attached, 50 to 75 barrels of mash, tanks and pressure tanks containing fermenting corn, a great many jugs, the corks of which, as the heat became intense, popped out and the contents burned with a flame characteristic of burning alcohol. The testimony is uncontradicted that the sons of the tenant living on the farm at 4 o'clock in the morning of the next day procured a truck owner to come there and with their aid haul away three loads of the material which evidenced the illicit business, such as the remnants of the jugs, barrels, stoves, and tanks, dumping them at two different places quite distant from the farm. No effort was made to clear up the débris in the large barn. One of the defenses pleaded was a violation of this provision of the policy: "And it is further agreed that if the risk be increased by any alteration of the building or other property, or by the erection of or occupation of neighboring buildings, or by any means whatever within the control of the assured, without the consent of this company, or if the assured has made any false representations respecting the value or consideration of the property, or his interest in it then, and in every such case, the policy shall be void." It is apparent that two questions are involved: First, was the risk increased by the installation and operation of the apparatus for distilling alcohol? Second, if increased, was it within the control of the plaintiff?
The first question was submitted to the jury as the only issue in the case; the charge being that, if they found that the installation and operation of the distilling apparatus increased the fire risk, it avoided the policy, and entitled defendant to a verdict. Defendant contends that, as a matter of law, the risk was increased. Ordinarily the question is for a jury. But the evidence here is uncontradicted that an illicit distillery was carried on in the westerly barn. Placing and using coal and gasoline stoves for heating and boiling in the ordinary farm barn not equipped with brick chimneys nor built or arranged for the purpose of making it safe to keep or maintain fires therein so obviously increases fire hazard that a jury should not be allowed to find to the contrary. In and between barns, as found on the ordinary farm, are hay, cornstalks, straw, and other readily inflammable rubbish, and fires in any kind of stove or heating apparatus in proximity thereto must be regarded by every reasonable person as increasing the fire risk. We are compelled to hold that the installation and operation of a still in a farm barn not located or constructed with a view safely to carry on such business exposes the premises insured to increased risk from fire. But, although we conclude that the issue submitted to the jury and found in plaintiff's favor should have been resolved in favor of defendant by the trial court, defendant is not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, because we are of the opinion that there was error in ruling that the consequence of the tenant's increase of the fire risk, under this policy, must necessarily fall upon plaintiff, the landlord, and that brings us to the second question.
For three years preceding the fire plaintiff had leased the farm under a so-called cropping contract or lease; the first year of the three being under a written agreement between plaintiff and William Weiler. Thereafter the lease was oral, and between plaintiff and the wife of William Weiler. Plaintiff resided in St. Paul after his farm was leased. The parties agree that the terms of the oral leases were supposed to be the same as the prior written one. No great importance should be given to the form or terms of the lease or contract under which Mrs. Weiler and her family were in possession. It is plain that plaintiff had relinquished the entire possession to them. He only reserved a right of entry for certain, not here important, specified purposes. It is common knowledge that in every community where the pioneer farmers have grown too old to themselves carry on their farms many are left to tenants and the owners move into some city or village to live during their declining years. No doubt those so doing seek to keep the same protection of the buildings on the farms against loss from fire that they did when living on the farm, and it may be assumed that insurance companies are willing for a premium to furnish such protection. There is nothing in defendant's policy or by-laws against insurance if the buildings insured are occupied by others than ...
To continue reading
Request your trial