HOFFMAN'll. MANUFACl'UnEBS' MUT. FIlm INS. CO.
HOFFMAN 11. MANUFACTURERS' Mm. FmE
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Indiana. April 16, 1889.)
1RSURANC:m-CONDITIONS OF POLICY.
By the terms of a policy the insurer was not to be liable for a greater proportion of any loss on the property described in the policy than the sum insured therein should bear to the whole sum insured on such property. Held. that a statement occupying a space for the description of the property. in which different pieces of property were specified. and opposite each piece was placed a certain sum. did not amount to an agreement by the insured tbat he would maintain an insurance upon tbe property equllito the aggregate of such sums, so that the insurer could take such aggregate as the basia upon which to tll'ture its proportion of loss.
At Law. On demurrer to answer. This action counts upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on a number of buildings and their contents, situated near Kellyville station in the state of Pennsylvania. 13y the terms of the policy the company agreed to indemnify Hoffman· to the amount of 82,500, and there is a provision that it shall not be liable for a greater proportion of any loss upon the property described in the policy than the sum iniured therein bears to the whole sum insured thereon. And it is also provided that the insurance may be terminated by either party upon notice, etc. Following the statement that the amount of the insurance is 82,500, and occupying the space for the description of the property, there appears the following printed form:
On stone building marked" A" on plan, iRcluding stone addition and stone stairway house, · $10,000 On stone building marked "B" on plan. including stone stairway house. 5,000 On stone building occupied as picker-house and carding-room, 750 On stone building occupied as a machine-shop. 750 On stone and frame building occupied as a dye-house. 750 On stone. bUilding, including stack. occupied as a boiler and enginehouse. · 750 9n stone and frame building occupied as a packing and finishing house. · 750 On stone building occupied asa store-house and stable, 750 On machinery of every description. also shafting. pulleys. hangers, couplings, belting. piping. water-wheels, pumps. drums. gearing, tanks. hose, shuttles. heddles, reeds, bobbins, spools. press-boards, press-papers. tools, implements, appurtenances, furniture, fixtures. and machinery supplies. contained in bUilding marked "A" on plan. and in the stone addition and stone stairway house. - 89.000 On machinery· and other items as above described. contained in building marked"B" on plan. 15.000 On machinery and other items as above described, containell in bUilding occupied as a picker-house and carding-room, 2.000 Amouut carried forward - 875.500
Amount brought forward , - $75.500 On machinery and otharitems as above described, contained in 1,000 building occupied as a machine-shop, On machinery and other items as above described, also tubs and vats. contained in building occupied as a dye-house. 2,000 On machinery and other items as above described. contained in, ,packing and finishing house building. 2.000 On machinery and other items as above descriled. also engine. boil, ers. and Hll connections. contained in building occupied as an ene gineand boiler house, 1,000 On stock and materials of every description. raw, manufactured, unmanufactured, and in process of manufacture, contained in 2,500 building marked" A" on plan, and in stone addition, On stock and materials as above described. contained in bUilding 1,500 marked "B" on plan, On stock and materials as above described, contained in building .occupied as a picker-house and carding-room, 500 Qn stock and materiHls as above described, contained in building , occupied as a dye·house, 500 On stock and materials as above described, contained in building occ 1I pied as a packing and finishing house, · 1,500 On stock and materials as ,above described, contained in building 2,000 occupied as a store-house and stable, $90.000 All situate on the Philadelphia and Baltimore Tnrnpike, about one quarter ofa mile from "Kellyville Station," on the West Chester & Philadelphia Rail-, road, Delaware Co., Penna., known as the "Kellyville Works," and occupie<;l: as a cotton-mill. Reference is had to Hexamer's plan, Nos. 661 and 662. Privilege to make additions, alterations, and repairs, to run until 9 o'clock P. M., and to make other insurance, without notice, until required. , It is understood and agreed that the Manuf'rs Mutual Fire Insurance pany, of Indianapolis. Indiana, covers under their policy, No. 2207, to which tAls specification- is attached, and made a part thereof. I-36th part of the "bove-named sums, amounting in the aggregate to twenty-five hundred ($2,500) dollars. C. B. FUNSTON, Secy. " Jt appears that on August 24, 1888, fires occurred in all of the several properties mentioned in this form, by which the plaintiff sustained losses to the amount of $51,000; and that at that time he had other insurance to the amount of $57,500, making a total insurance of $60,000. The plaintiffclaims that the detEmdant is liable for $2,125,-that sum bearing the same proportion to $2,500 as the total loss to the whole amount of insuranoo at the time of the loss. The defendant, by its third paragraph of answer, admits a liability for $1,416.52, being two-thirds of the #Wlount sued for, claiming that the printed form, with the sums stated and aggregated, amounts to an agreement by the plaintift' to maintain an insurance of $90,000 on the property, and to become a co-insurer with the defendant fOr such amount as the actual insurance at the time of the '10138 should fall short of this; and, as there existed but $60,000 insurance ,when the loss occurred, it is insisted that the plaintiff should bear one'third of it. It is also stated in the answer that at the time the policy
LANG 11. LYNCH.
sued on was issued, the plaintiff actually had $90,000 of insurance on the properties, and afterwards, without notice to the defendant, canceled $30,000. ' Morris, Newberger &- OultiJJ and Sharp &- Alleman, for plaintiff. W. T. Brown and Vimon Carter, for defeudant.
WOODS, J., (after stating the facts as above.) The court does not accede to the proposition that the statement furnished by the assured, when inserted in the policy, became either a representation or a covenant by the assured that he had, or intended to procure, and would maintain, insurance upon the several pieces of property described to the respective amounts set opposite each; nor, if such representations were conceded, does the court think the consequences contended for would follow.· In the absence of any corresponding covenant or condition in the contract, a mere representation of intention in respect to future acts or conduct creates no obligation, and affords no ground of relief from an agreement. It is alleged in the answer that when this policy was written the complainant; had other insurance to the amount of $90,000, butthat can hardly affect the question, there being in the policy no stipulation or condition that any particular amount of insurance should be maintained. Demurrer sustained.
et ale "'.
«(Jif'w,it (Jourt, D. New Hampshire. April 19, 1889'1
INTOXICATING LIQUORS-ILLEGAL SALES-AcTION FOR PRICE.
2. SAME. . The effect of that statute is to bar the right to recover the priceof liquor sold in violation of its provisions. Following Jones v. Surpri8e, (N. H.) 9 Atl. Rep.884. 8. SAME-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-REGULATION OF COMMERCE. That statute is not s. restriction upon interstate commerce. Distinguishing Bowman v. Railway OQ., 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689, 1062.
The taking of an order for liquor by a traveling salesman, In New Hampshire, to be filled by his principals residing in another state. forms It part of the contract of sale, so as to make the transaction void under Gen. Laws N. H. c. 109, § 18, making it a criminal offense to solicit or take orders for spirituous liquors in the state, to be delivered at a place without the state, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that if so delivered the same will be transported into the state, and sold in violation of law. Following Jones. v. Surp.ri8e, (N. H.) 9 AU. Rep. 884-
At Law. On motion by plaintiffs for new trial. John Hatch, for plaintiffs. John S. H. Frink, for defendant.
COLT, J. By the laws of New Hampshire it is made a criminal offense ;for a persoll to solicit or take orders for spirituous liquors iIi the state, to be delivered at a place without the state, knowing, or having