FEDERAL REPORTER·. ·
be kE1pt or maintained in the factory, and the assured undouPWdly had the right to reQloye. theIllif it saw fit. In other words, no obligation oothe part of the assured to keep this force-pump andhos!l in the factory for the purpose of protecting the property against fi,re. Tha.tthe machinery was to stand stillpart,;ofthetime was undoubtedly in the contePlplation of the,pjj,rties at the time of the issue of tPje, polioy,. . The polioy ilpecially pern:lits the stoppage for repairs and and it was stopped over night l!Jlq S,undays, when it w.ouldbe in all. respactsas mu.ch exposed. to fire as it.·was during the between the time the machinery was. stopped eight .dlloYs that and the time of the lam, therefore, clearly of· opinion that there was no increase of risk by stopping manufacturing by the lessees, as the stoppQ.ge;was only tet;nporary:, for a ,purpose permitted by the policy. Th!l fact that the then price of cotton furniehedlUlothermotive for stoppingrfiot that time does not defeat thisrightto stop.a.nd,still retain the policy in, ,foree. .i . . ' , All to' tbe.seeondl d.efense,· that the allowed.· to become vacant and unoccupied, I do not think that in any sense this clause can to have been violated by ·the.plaintiff.The, in ,qhafge·of,the .usual superintendent of thecompanyjthe"night.and.day watehmenwere on duty all the time the 'machinery lay:.stillj employes were at:' the'factory and ,about it all the ·time ftom the eight,hday of July, when the 'YcJrk was Sli!!pended,uqtil the building W'asbut1iedi.and inno senae d<5es it to: me that the' preDiiseecl1-Il ,be.sald.to, · cant and unoccupied. It is true they were as denseiy occupied by in'the working'hours of these eight days as ,they were dui'ing thoseibo,Q.:t'8when t.he factory but, stillthe.J.le were enough .people about to retain possession, and keep watch against intrusion, and togive''riotice, ira. flreshol.lld break out or othel."(fangerarise to the property involving the risks under the policy. . ,'. " TtJ,in, therefore, Qf'.opinion that the, defense is not Bustailled by the proofj ,and the iss11e is found for theplaiiltiff, with ,damages according to. the adjustment, .and interest from the time the ,loss became payable.
Co. "'. FIRE
(Oircuit Oourt.:li; D. IllinoiS. 'J u1y 25, 1887.) . ,;
. A policy of insurance contained a clause that if the risk :was increased with of insured, ,and without notice to the. company, tp,e policy sht)uld be void. A mllonu!acturing company stopped WOlik for a few days, cot· ton 1)elng' high, and repaired its machinery meantime, whereby no usecou1d be made, of a stellJUcpumpand hose connected with the engine, in case of fire. The policy for repairs.. that there was no increase . of risk b:y thIS temporary stoppage; follOWIng ltfanuj"u 00. v. Read· '''trwI':ll'ir' T1IAJ. (Jp... antl. 2 3 2 . ' ,,'
RELIANCE INS. CO.
a}ld unoccupied witbout ib,e knowledge and con$ent of, the company the policy should be void. Defendant, a manufacturing company, temporarily stopped work, and repaired its machinery; the night and day watchmen were on dilt:'} and the employes were at .and about the factory from its closing until it burned. Held, that the building was in no sense vacant and unoccupied; following Brighton Manujg 00. v. Reading Fire 171,8. 00., ante, 232.
3. SAME-CONDITIONS-CESSATION OF BUSINESS.
A policy of ;insurance provided ,tbatif the building insured became vacan't
lCANT' A:"ND UNOCCUPIED
A manufactuTing company which closes temporarily 'and repairs its machinery, and is burned down in eight days, cannot be said to have ceased operating 80 as, to, avoid a policy of insurance.
At Law. Suit to recover on polioy of insurance. The Brighton Manufacturing Company sued the Fire Association of, Philadelphia, to recover for a loss by fire. E. W. RusseU, for plaintiff. . Gary, Cody & Gary and Fred'k Ullman, for defendant. BLODGE'l"r, J. This is a suit upon a policy by the defendant upon tbe same property as that covered' by the policy in the preceding case; and the facts in the cases are essentially the same. The defenses set up are:' (1) That the risk was increased by a change in the occupation of the building, with the knowledge of the assured; (2) that the building was allowed by the to become vacant and unoccupied; (3) that, being a manufacturing 'establishment, it ceased to be operated. I have sufficiently considered the first two objections in the former case; and will' only say in regard to the third and last, that Ido not think, under the facts in this case, the factory can be said not to have been operated during the time manufacturing was suspended for eight days preceding the fire;' but, if I am wrong in my view as to the meaning and force of the term "ceased to be operatad, "the plaintiffs certainly had the right to stop temporarily for repairs. There will therefore be 8 finding for the plaintiff.
(OirCLU Court, N. D. nliitcls. July 25, 1887.)
At Law. Suit to recover on a policy of insurance. Action by the Brighton Manufacturing Company against the Reliance Insurance Company on a poliGY of insurance. ,E. W. Russell, forplainti.ff. '" f/ary, Cody &0 f/arll and F1'ed"k mZman, for ,i3LODGETl'. J. in this.case are the s,ameasln the preceding ca,se; and defenses set up that rIsk was increase.a With the kllowle<;lge pf. the assured, of which no notice was given to the defendant; that the assured allOWed the building to become vacant and unoccupied,· Without notice to the