Village of L'Anse v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia
Decision Date | 06 March 1899 |
Citation | 119 Mich. 427,78 N.W. 465 |
Parties | VILLAGE OF L'ANSE v. FIRE ASS'N OF PHILADELPHIA. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Baraga county; Norman W. Haire, Judge.
Action by the village of L'Anse against the Fire Association of Philadelphia. There was a judgment directed for defendant and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Philip R. McKernan (Frank E. Robson, of counsel), for appellant.
Gray & Looney, for appellee.
On April 9, 1896, the defendant issued its policy of insurance to the plaintiff for the term of one year from April 19 1896. The policy provides that the association does "insure village of L'Anse *** against all direct loss or damages by fire, except as hereinafter provided, to an amount not exceeding $1,500, to the following described property, while located and contained as described herein and not elsewhere, to wit: $400 on the two-story frame, shingled roof, fire-engine house, situate detached 70 feet, in the village of L'Anse, Baraga county, Michigan; $700 on steam fire engine and heater attached; $200 on hose and hose pipe; $300 on hose cart, tools, and machinery not enumerated,-all contained in above-described building. $1,500 other concurrent insurance noted." Then follows the usual Michigan form of standard policy. On May 9, 1896, the said steam fire engine, hose, hose pipe, and hose cart, as covered by the policy, were burned and destroyed by fire. None of the above property was in the building at the time it was burned, but was being used in an attempt to extinguish a fire some 200 to 800 feet from the building. The defendant refused to pay the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the loss of the property, on the ground that, under the policy, it was insured only while contained in the building mentioned and described in the policy, and not elsewhere. The action brought to recover on the policy was tried before the court without a jury, and the court found in favor of defendant's contention, and thereupon entered judgment in its favor. Plaintiff brings error.
It is admitted by counsel for plaintiff that the case involves but the one question: What is the proper construction of the words in the policy, "while located and contained as described herein and not elsewhere"? It is argued by counsel that the usual purpose and use by the plaintiff of a fire engine, hose, hose cart, and other appliances described in the policy would be to extinguish fires in the village and that, in order to be so used, it would be, as occasion might require, temporarily out of the engine house, which would be its place of deposit when not in use; that such use must have been contemplated by both parties to the contract; and that such use must be presumed to have been taken into consideration by the defendant in fixing the rate of premium. It is said by counsel that the words "contained in," etc., and like expressions, were in use before the adoption of the standard form of policy, and had a well-settled meaning, and, if applied to property the...
To continue reading
Request your trial