Western Woolen Mill Co. v. Northern Assur. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 July 1905 |
| Docket Number | 2,216 |
| Parties | WESTERN WOOLEN MILL CO. v. NORTHERN ASSUR. CO. OF LONDON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
The woolen mill company sued the assurance company to recover the amount of two policies of insurance issued by the latter to the former on the 6th day of August, 1902, and on May 5 1903, for the sums of $4,000 and $1,500, respectively. The property insured was wool, and it was insured against all direct loss or damage by fire. At the trial the evidence on the part of the woolen mill company established the following, among other, facts:
On the 29th day of May, 1903, the woolen mill company owned about 80,000 pounds of wool, stored in certain buildings at Topeka Kan., which was covered by the policies in question. The wool was in the same condition as when taken from the sheep. Wool in this condition contains about 5 per cent. of foreign matter in the way of manure, strings, and straw. On or about the 29th day of May, 1903, this wool was entirely submerged by water, caused by an unusual flood in the Kaw river, and remained so submerged for eight days. After the subsidence of the water, the woolen mill company endeavored to save the wool by spreading it around upon floors for the purpose of drying the same. The wool was found to be wet and covered with mud, very much heated, and, when handled, the fleeces came apart as if the fiber of the wool had been destroyed by the action of the heat and the water or, as plaintiff in error claims, by burning. It became necessary in handling the wool to use pitchforks, as the wool was too hot for the hands. The strings around the fleeces had apparently burned. There was smoke in the rooms where the wool was, and an odor of burned wool. There was no flame to be seen no firelight, and no visible fire. Whatever process was acting upon the wool to its damage was as visible at the time the wool was first seen and separated as at any time. The wool was not hot enough to blister one's hands in handling it. The building in which the wool was stored did not burn, nor any part of it. Whatever damage was done to the wool was caused by the action of water thereon. There was evidence of ashes. There was steam and smoke, and the wool was said by one witness to be charred; but at all the times the wool was wet. Wool in the condition of the wool in question is subject to spontaneous combustion when submerged in water. Spontaneous combustion is a rapid oxidation. Fire is oxidation which is so rapid as to either produce flame or a glow. Burning and rotting are, in the main, processes of oxidation, a combining with oxygen; but in the rotting that operation of combining with oxygen is indirect, and helped by what is called fermentation or bacterial action usually. In the case of burning, the substance combines directly at the high temperature with the oxygen of the air, and produces the ordinary effect of burning in the stove.
At the close of the evidence for the mill company, counsel for the assurance company demurred to the evidence, upon the ground that the same did not show that the wool was damaged by fire within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Continental Insurance Co. v. Reynolds
... ... 2083; Ins. Co. v. Rupard, ... 220 S.W. 538; Mill Co. v. North British Co., 139 F ... 637; Fitzgerald v ... ...
-
EAC Timberlane v. Pisces, Ltd.
...to enter and gradually drag the vessel to ocean depths. They point to the definition of fire stated in Western Woolen Mill Co. v. Northern Assur. Co., 139 F. 637 (8th Cir.1905): Fire is always caused by combustion, but combustion does not always cause fire. The word `spontaneous' refers to ......
-
Aetna Insurance Co. v. Getchell Steel Treating Co.
...It has been defined by a number of courts, including this one, as combustion accompanied by heat and light. Western Woolen Mill Co. v. Northern Assur. Co., 139 F. 637 (8th Cir. 1905); Sun Insurance Office of London v. Western Woolen Mill Co., 72 Kan. 41, 82 P. 513 (1905); Security Ins. Co. ......
-
Am. Coal Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Dep't of Labor, 14–1206.
...from 1905 to 1969, which arguably identify fire exclusively with the presence of flames. See, e.g., W. Woolen Mill v. N. Assurance Co. of London, 139 F. 637, 639 (8th Cir.1905) (“No definition of fire can be found that does not include the idea of visible heat or light, and this is also the......