Westfield Cigar Co. v. Ins. Co. of North America

• Decision Date: 02 April 1896
• Citation: 43 N.E. 504,165 Mass. 541
• Parties: WESTFIELD CIGAR CO. v. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA. SAME v. MERCHANTS' INS. CO. OF NEWARK. SAME v. COLUMBIAN FIRE INS. CO. SAME v. TEUTONIA INS. CO. SAME v. RELIANCE INS. CO. SAME v. CHESHIRE COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. SAME v. SPRING GARDEN INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

165 Mass. 541

43 N.E. 504

WESTFIELD CIGAR CO.

v.INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA.

SAME

v.MERCHANTS' INS. CO. OF NEWARK.

SAME

v.COLUMBIAN FIRE INS. CO.

SAME

v.TEUTONIA INS. CO.

SAME

v.RELIANCE INS. CO.

SAME

v.CHESHIRE COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO.

SAME

v.SPRING GARDEN INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

April 2, 1896.

Report from superior court, Hampden county; John Hopkins, Judge.

Actions by the Westfield Cigar Company against the Insurance Company of North America, and against the Merchants' Insurance Company of Newark, and against the Columbian Fire Insurance Company, and against the Teutonia Insurance Company, and against the Reliance Insurance Company, and against the Cheshire County Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and against the Spring Garden Insurance Company. Verdict for defendant was directed in each case, and the cases reported to the supreme court. Verdicts set aside.

J.B. Carroll and W.H. McClintock, for plaintiff.

Robinson & Robinson, for defendants.

LATHROP, J.

These are actions upon seven policies of insurance. In six of the policies the descriptive clause of the property insured was as follows: “On tobacco and cigars, manufactured and in process, and boxes, labels and supplies, contained in brick block situated Nos. 82-90, Worthington St., Springfield, Mass.” In the other policy the descriptive clause was: “On tobacco and cigars, manufactured, unmanufactured, and in process, and on boxes, labels, and supplies, contained in brick block situate Nos. 82 to 90 Worthington St., Springfield, Mass. On furniture, fixtures, machines, tools, implements, and apparatus, benches, and improvements therein.” The question in controversy at the trial was whether these descriptive clauses covered the tobacco and cigars contained in the warehouse of the plaintiff. At the trial in the superior court the judge excluded the greater part of the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and ordered verdicts for the defendants, and the cases are reported for our determination. By the terms of the report, if there was any evidence in the cases upon which the jury might have found for the plaintiff, or if any evidence was excluded which should have been admitted, the cases were to stand for trial; otherwise, the verdicts were to stand. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff occupied the fifth story over stores numbered 84 to 90 on Worthington street, and also the fifth story over a store numbered 80 on the same street, the latter being used as its warehouse. The only entrance to these premises from the street was by a doorway numbered 82 on the same street. If the evidence offered had been admitted, it would have warranted the jury in finding that the numbers mentioned in the policies designated only some of the entrances to a large buildingfronting on Main street, and extending 300 feet on Worthington street, over the principal entrance to which, on Main street, were the words “Wight Block.” The building was owned by one person. It was begun many years ago, and was extended from time to time to the eastward along Worthington street. In 1888 the land to the west of the present entrance on Worthington street, numbered 82, was covered with a three-story building with a French roof, and east of this was a two-story dwelling house. In 1888 the roof of the three-story building was taken off. The front wall was practically all taken down, and was rebuilt, being carried up two stories higher. The east wall had an opening left in it, on the fifth story, for a doorway into the room afterwards occupied by the plaintiff, which room, the defendants contend, is not within the policy. At the same time a building was put up covering all the land belonging to the owner, to the eastward. This new building had no west end wall, but used the east wall of the other building. The entire work was done by one contractor at the same time, and the front on Worthington street of the two buildings was substantially the same in appearance. It appears, therefore, that the entire premises occupied by the plaintiff were constructed at the same time, by the same person. The only way of reaching these premises, except by a freight elevator in the rear of No. 80, was by the stairs, to which entrance was had by the doorway numbered 82. At the top of the stairs was a hallway, and a door on the east side leading into the factory, and one on the west side leading into the warehouse. The defendants have made a tender of the amount due for the loss occurring in that portion of the premises over Nos. 84 to 90, but contest their liability for loss in the warehouse over No. 80.

We have no doubt that, if the description in this case had contained no reference to a brick block, it would be plain that the warehouse in question would be properly described as “No. 82.” It could not be contended that if a building had two entrances from the street,-one to a store on the first floor, with one number, and the other with another number to the floors above,-an insurance of the contents of the floors above would not properly be described as of the latter number. And it has been decided by this court that to some extent, at least, floors in other buildings may be...