« AnteriorContinuar »
realized on salo and his manner of stating the facts ing young and old, sick and healthy, great preparamakes the case seem more complicated than it really tions had to be made, and an extension of time
was necessary. This also being accorded, another Suppose M. put it this way: A, B and C hold sepa day was appointed, and again no rats appearing, Chasserate mortgages on the same property. They were de neuz objected to the legality of the summons under livered in the order named, but recorded in the inverse certain circumstances. A summons from that court, order. B however knew that A held his mortgage he argued, implied full protection to the parties sumunrecorded, and C knew of B’s. Now upon foreclog- moned, both on their way to it and their return home; ure, “Midsummer" being a careful lawyer, and hoping but his clients, the rats, though most anxious to appear to realize enough to pay all the parties, made his client in obedience to the court, did not dare to stir out of their B the plaintiff, and C and A defendants. What decree | holes on account of the number of evil disposed cats should he have taken?
kept by the plaintiffs. Let the latter, he continued, C was first on the record, and knowing nothing enter into bonds, under heavy pecuniary penalties, of A's mortgage, he (C) of course comes in ahead of A; that their cats shall not molest my clients, and the but C knowing of B s mortgage, he must postpone his summons will at once be obeyed. The court acknowllien to that. Hence the decreo provides that as be edged the force of this plausible plea, but the plainttween C and A, C's mortgage must be first paid; but iffs refusing to be bound over for the good behavior of as between C and B, the proceeds shall first be applied their cats, the period for the attendance of the rats to the payment of B's prior lien. This in no way was adjourned sine die, and thus Chasseneuz and his prejudices C, for he gets all the law gives him, viz., the clients came off victorious." proceeds subject to the prior lien of B. Then B, although prior to A on the record, knew that A has his
The Law Magazine and Review for August contains unrecorded mortgage; hence the amount set apart for articles on the Decline of Circuit Life, by John KingB must, as between him and A, go first to pay A's mort
horn; Parliamentary Drawing and Conveyancing, by F. gage, residue, if any, to B's.
S. Reilly; Study of Jurisprudence, by Albert V. Dicey; Applying this distribution to the facts, the money Legal Relations between a Stockbroker and his Cusgoes as follows: “Midsummer” gets his costs and al tomer, by F. T. Piggott and Frederick Whinuey ; Lord lowances (he has well earned them), his client B gets Chief Baron Yelverton, by Waldron Burrowes -- an unnothing (not an unusual case), and C gets his $5,000, usually interesting number. - We notice that the and A the residue. Yours truly,
Central Law Journal agrees with us in opinion, that the
SUBSCRIBER. decision in the Ah Chuey case, where the prisoner was Port Richmond, 8. I., August 23, 1880.
compelled to exhibit tattoo marks on his person to the
jury, on the question of identity, is wrong. To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal: I answer “Midsummer's" question as to priority of
In Palmer v. Alleyne, recently tried at Liverpool, mortgages, asked in ALBANY LAW JOURNAL of Au
before Mr. Justico Lindley and a jury, the plaintiff gust 31, 1880, at page 160, as follows, viz. : A's mortgage
had obtained a grant of exclusive burial in a cemetery, was not recorded and C had no knowledge of it, there
had there buried his wife, had gone away leaving the fore the mortgage of C has preference of payment over
grant with the defendant, and in his absence the dethat of A. A stood ahead of B as between A and B,
fendant had in the same grave buried his mother, stepbut lost his priority, which went to C, who stood be
mother of the plaintiff's dead wife. The plaintiff hind B. As C, who stood behind B, worked ahead of
brought trespass, but the case was settled. -- Iu A, by reason of A'S NEGLECT in not recording his mort
Healey v. Jeffries, tried before Mr. Justice Fry and a gage, B now can claim the payment of his mortgage
jury, the defendant was master of a work-house, who over A, and A is out in the cold.
had detained the plaintiff, a lady's maid, on a charge of Yours,
delirium tremens, which turned out to be hysterics. EGBERT WHITAKER.
This cost the defendant 801. SAUGERTIES, August 25, 1880.
The High Court of Justiciary in Scotland has had to
decide a curious charge of cruelty to animals preferred NOTES.
mider the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ScotTHE Popular Science Monthly, for September, con
land) Act, which is in the same terms as the corre1 tains an interesting article by William M. Ivins,
sponding English act. The appellant and his wife were on Comparative Jurisprudence. The writer concludes
walking in Leith with two dogs which were attacked
by a larger dog. The dogs were separated once, but that two great lessons of this science are the exact nature of the relation of custom to law, and the exact
began to fight again. Neither the appellant, nor his nature of the relation of custom and law to legisla
wife, nor his servant, nor a policeman, were able to tion. From Legal Prosecutions of Animals, by Wil
separate them. The appellant, having destroyed his liam Jones, in the same periodical, we extract the
umbrella in his efforts for the protection of his own following: “The citation contained a description of
dogs, fetched a knife from his house, which was close
by, and inflicted several stabs on the large dog, from the animals; thus, in a process against rats in the diocese of Autun, the defendants were described as dirty
the effects of which it died on the following day. The animals in the form of rats, of a grayish color, living in
police magistrate fined him thirty shillings, and it was holes. This trial is famous in the annals of French
argued in support of the conviction that the appellant law, for it was on that occasion Chasseneuz (who wrote
had committed an offense within the statute, since he a work in 1588, on the excommunication of animals),
had been guilty of wanton cruelty, and had inflicted
needless pain by causing the dog to die a lingering and the famous advocate, won his first laurels. The rats not appearing on the first citation, Chasseneuz, their
painful death. The court, however, allowed the apcounsel, with true legal subtilty, argued that the sum
peal. The Lord Justice Clerk, after observing that "it mons was of a too local and individual character; that
is not comfortable to try to separate dogs which are as all the rats in the diocese were interested
fighting,” held that there had been no cruelty within
all the rats should be summoned. This plea being ad
the act, which was only aimed against persons who mitted, the curate of every parish in the diocese was
nuake an animal suffer without cause. The court,
however, expressly abstained from expressing an opininstructed to summon every rat for a future day.
ion as to whether the appellant was liable to an action The day arriving, but not any rats, Chasseneuz de | at the suit of the owner of the deceased dog. - Solicito clared that as all his clients were summoned, includ- lors' Journal.
The Albany Law Journal.
and beloved friends of the Virginia bar, arraying themselves on the side of good sense, law and or
der, moral courage and christianity, against the false ALBANY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1880.
idea of chivalry and the infraction of human and
divine law involved in duelling. CURRENT TOPICS.
The apparent disadvantage of living in a country IN the current number of the Virginia Law Jour- I like France or South Carolina, where they have no 1 nal is a glowing memoir of Patrick Henry Ayo divorce, is shown in the recent trial of the Comtesse lett - grandson of Patrick Henry of Revolutionary de Tilly at Poitiers. A contemporary says: "The fame — who died in 1870, aged 45. He seems to countess confessed to throwing vitriol in the face of have been a brilliant popular orator, a lawyer en
a young girl, destroying one eye and disfiguring her gaged in important causes, a leading politician, and for life, having been told the terrible effects of the a statesman of promise. At the present time we loud by the chemisto
liquid by the chemist of whom she bought it. The find an appropriate text in the following extract:
jury, after a 'touching address from her advocate,' “In 1859, Patrick Henry Aylett challenged and acquitted her, on the ground that the girl was her fought a duel in North Carolina with the chivalrous husband's mistress, that she had paid the medical and lion-hearted 0, Jennings Wise, whose untimely
expenses and made compensation, had learned Latin fall at Roanoke Island lost to his native State a son
and Greek to teach her children, and was generous whose valor and brilliant genius shone with meteoric
to the poor. But the French jury had an excuse splendor along the short path of his early manhood. Mr. Wise was editor of the Enquirer, and Mr. Ay
for so glaring a non sequitur which an English jury lett was writing for the Eraminer; their articles, and
would be without. The Comte de Tilly was charged the antagonism which they aroused, excited so much | with infidelity and cruelty; and in England his wife heat, that all efforts at amicable adjustment proved might have sued for a divorce. Where no such abortive, and a hostile meeting became unavoidable. remedy exists, the wild justice which the countess Escaping the Richmond police, they got upon the Dan
wreaked on her rival is not unlikely to be followed ville train some distance in the country, and fought with pistols early next morning, just over the North
by the equally wild justice which the jurymen beCarolina line. Mr. Aylett's bullet narrowly missed
stowed on her.” In this country we do better, for the person of Mr. Wise. Mr. Wise fired in the air. we not only have divorce generally, but we usually This ended the combat, as Mr. Wise's noble and acquit every person who pleads a 'sexual” reason magnanimous behavior disarmed every feeling of for his violence. resentment in the brave and manly bosom of his antagonist. As Mr. Wise, in his duel with Hon. Sher- A citizen has libelled the excursion steamer Sea rard Clemens, fired at and wounded him, it was Bird for the recovery of penalties for carrying a never known why he should have discharged his
greater number of passengers than she was by law pistol in the air in his fight with Mr. Aylett, unless
authorized to carry. The action was brought under it was because his adversary was very near-sighted, and was, moreover, a married man with several small
section 4465 of the Revised Statutes, and section children. Both gentlemen bore themselves before 4469 makes the penalty a lien on the vessel. The the duel, upon the field, and afterward, in a manner libellant is entitled to recover the amount of the fare worthy of their names and ancestry. In courtesy, and $10 additional for each and every passenger calor, and magnanimity, neither Richard of the Iron carried in excess of the number which the vessel is Heart nor Ivanhoe could have surpassed them.”
allowed by her certificate to carry. Pollock claims We have italicised some words to point our reflec- that the Sea Bird carried an excess of 371 passentions. The picture that we have is that of a lawyer gers on July 11 from New York to the Highlands, and statesman, deliberately breaking the law, and and an excess of 237 on the trip made that day from sending a challenge on account of an editorial dis Sandy Hook to Bay Ridge. The case was before cussion, resisting friendly intervention, evading the Judge Choate, in the United States District Court, officers of justice, fighting a duel, spared by his an recently, for hearing on objections made by the detagonist on account of his defective eyesight, and fendants, the libellees. These objections were that for the sake of his little children whom their father the suit should be begun in the name of the United seemed to have forgotten, and compared by his States; that the statute does not give a remedy by biographer, his brother, to a brutal and cruel hero libel in admiralty against the vessel, but only against of a barbarous age. This picture would better have the master and owners personally, and that the libelbeen omitted from the memoir of a lawyer and lant does not appear to have been a passenger or to statesman. It seems out of place in a legal journal. | have been damaged by the act complained of. The We would fain believe that the senseless, unlawful, objections were overruled. The statute makes the and wicked fashion of duelling is going out of penalty recoverable by “any person suing for the vogue in the new South. It seems to be growing same." Whether this citizen is actuated by mounpopular even in South Carolina. If New Yorkers tives of public or of private good, the step is an boast of the fame of Alexander Hamilton, they do excellent one. A few recoveries will do much to not dwell on the manner of his death. He died as prevent such horrible catastrophes as that of the the fool dieth. But then and now are different Sewanhaka. It is a pity that more private citizens eras. We should be glad to see our esteemed con- will not interest themselves in the enforcement of temporary, the Virginia Law Journal, and our learned' the laws for public safety.
Vol. 22.— No. 11.
The employers' liability bill has passed the House men carelessly spills a pot of molten iron over anof Commons. It provides for the liability of the other, while endeavoring to obey the superintendemployer to the workman for injury by reason of ent's instructions. Is the master liable? If so, why defective machinery or appliances; the negligence should he be ? He has not been careless, nor has of a superintendent or any person to whose orders bis delegate, the superintendent. The master would the workman was bound to conform; the act or omis- not have been liable if the superintendent had not sion of any person done or made in obedience to the given “particular instructions." Why should the employer's rules or by-laws, or in obedience to par- “ particular instructions" make the master liable ? ticular instructions given by any person delegated | It is probable that all the employers touched will with the authority of the employer; the negligence now exact a contract of hiring, releasing them from of any person who has charge or control of any sig- | these liabilities, in consideration of a trifling innals, points, locomotive engine, or railroad train.crease of wages, as Lord Bramwell has pointed out. The right of action survives in case of death, and in that case the right and remedies are the same as We publish in full the opinion of Judge Westif the workman had not been in the service of the brook on the question of license to sell ale and beer. employer. In case of defective machinery, etc., The question is not only important to a large body the liability does not arise unless original defect or of people, dispensers and recipients of the beverthe omission to repair it springs from the negligence ages aforesaid, but gains interest from the fact that of the employer or some one in his service charged | Judge Barnard disagrees with its conclusions. The with the duty. No rule or by-law approved or ac- point of disagreement seems to be this: when the cepted by any department of government under au- act of 1870 extends the act of 1857, when not inthority of Parliament shall be deemed improper. consistent with it, over the whole State, is the No liability arises in case the workman knows of original act of 1857 alone extended, or does the exthe defect or negligence, and neglects within a rea- | tension also carry the amendment to that act passed sonable time to notify the employer or some superior in 1869 ? Judge Barnard holds that the extension to the workman, unless he knows that the employer does not embrace the amendment; Judge Westbrook or such superior already knows of the defect or neg- holds that it does. Judge Barnard also holds that ligence. No action is maintainable unless written no beer license can now be granted outside the menotice of the injury or death is given within six tropolitan police district, apparently overlooking weeks, and action is brought within six months; but O'Rourke v. People, 3 Hun, 225; 5 T. & C. 496. It in case of death the want of notice shall be no bar is understood that Judge Erastus Cooke, of the if the judge thinks the omission excusable. The Second Judicial District, sustains Judge Westrecovery shall not exceed the estimated earnings of brook's view. a person in the same employment, grade, and district, for the three years next preceding the injury;
NOTES OF CASES. and shall be diminished by the amount of any sum
ADVANCE sheets of the 13th Rhode Island Repreviously paid by way of penalty for the same neg
A ports bring us several interesting cases. In ligence under any other act of Parliament. A su
Bradbury v. Furlong, 14, F. owned and for purposes perintendent is a person whose sole or principal
of repair controlled a yard occupied by a tenant, duty is superintendence and who is not ordinarily
In the yard was a cistern on which F. had put a engaged in manual labor; the term "employer" in
proper iron cover. This was removed without the cludes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate;
knowledge of F., and a wooden cover weighted with “workman" means a railway servant and any per
a stone but claimed to be insecure was substituted. son to whom the Employers and Workmen Act of
A child three years old living in a tenement, the 1875 applies.
yard of which was contiguous to F.'s yard and conThe Employers and Workmen Act of 1875 de nected with it by an open gateway, fell into the cisfines "workman" as excepting domestic and menial tern and was drowned. In an action by the adminservants, and including laborers, servants in hus | istrator of the child against F., brought under the bandry, journeymen, artificers, handicraftmen, mi- | statute, giving a right of action for an injury inflicted ners, or others engaged in manual labor. It will by a wrongful act causing death, held, that F. was thus be seen that the new bill excludes domestic and not liable. The court said: “This court has demenial servants, and does not cover the case of a cided that in order to maintain an action under this servant suffering injury from the negligence of a section it is not necessary to prove that the injury mere fellow-servant, having no authority over him, was inflicted by the defendant in person, but that except when in obedience to the employer's rules or it is enough to prove that it was inflicted by his by-laws, or his particular instructions to a delegate agent or servant, and also that it is not necessary to of his authority, or in case of certain railway em- | prove that the injury was purposely inflicted, but ployees. Now what is meant by "rules" ? Does that it is enough to prove that it resulted from some it mean only written rules, or does it include oral act carelessly or negligently done by the defendant, instructions ? This seem to us extremely vague, and his agent or servant. Chase v. American Steamboat donbtless will give rise to considerable discussion in Co., 10 R. I. 79; McCaughey v. Tripp, 12 id. 449. the courts. Take the case of a foundry ander the The court has gone thus far in compliance with the direction of a superintendent. One of the work. I rule that remedial statutes are to be liberally con
strued. We are now asked to go further, and hold interest in the realty of his wife, on the wife by atthat the section applies where the defendant has taching her realty, and on both by attaching the done nothing but simply remain passive when he wife's share of an intestate estate in the hands of ought to have been more vigilant and active to an administrator. Pending the suit the husband guard against a possible danger. If the statute was was adjudged a bankrupt and subsequently died. intended to apply to such a case, the language used | Held, that the wife being legally incapable in Rhode to express the intention was badly chosen; for cer- Island to make a promissory note, the action against tainly an injury resulting from a mere omission to her could not be maintained. The court said: “As act would not ordinarily be described as an injury a general rule the validity of a contract is to be deinflicted by a wrongful act. We will not say, how-termined by the law of the place of contract. Story's ever, that it is impossible so to construe the section, Confl. of Laws, SS 242, 280; Whart. Confl. of Laws, nor indeed that we should not so construe it if it $$ 401, 419; Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 65. So with were the only section on the subject. It is not the the forms of execution and solemnization. Whart. only section. The same chapter contains another Confl. of Laws, SS 401, 606, 676; see, also, Savigny section (§ 16), applicable to common carriers and to and Fælix, quoted by Lawrence, Commentaires, the proprietors of railroads and steamboats, which tome iii, 265. But there is much contrariety of demakes them answerable for the life of any person cision and many exceptions made by the cases, the lost by reason of their carelessness or negligence, or courts generally trying to carry into effect the inby the carelessness or negligence of their agents or tention of the parties, and sometimes to protect servants. The two sections are to be construed to their own citizens from imposition, especially in the gether, and being so construed, they lead to the case of married women and persons under age." conclusion that common carriers and proprietors of “Every State has full control over property within railroads and steamboats were intended to be put on it and over the process of its courts. It has the a different footing from other persons, and to be right to regulate the transfer of real property, held to answer for loss of life when other persons stocks, and personal property within its limits; and would not be held. This being so, the question is, it will not permit a foreign law to be intruded or to
swer is, that common carriers and proprietors of Whart. Confl. of Laws, $S 278, 297, 304, 334–5, 339, railroads and steamboats were intended to be sub 353. And a contract valid by the laws of one State jected to a stricter liability than other persons, and cannot be enforced in another, unless such a conto be held for their negligence or carelessness, even tract made between its own citizens could be enthough it were merely passive, whereas other per forced there, or in other words, it depends on the sons are to be held only when death ensues from in- | lex fori. On any other doctrine we should have a jury inflicted by their wrongful acts.” Our own confusion of laws in the community, some persons statute is quite different, giving the right of action and acts being regulated by the local laws and some in case of "wrongful act, neglect, or default.” by the laws of foreign States; and we should be in
the situation of some countries in the Middle Ages, In Von Storch v. Winsloro, 20, it is held that a sew- where different nationalities had been intermingled ing machine and a piano are “household furniture," by immigration, or oftener by conquest, each retainexempt from attachment. The court remarked: ing its ancient laws.” “It may further illustrate “We have no doubt whatever that a sewing ma- | the case to inquire whether she, remaining married, chine is a domestic implement of such a character could, either while resident abroad or on coming that it ought to be so regarded. There is more here, sue in this State. Evidently not except in the question in regard to the piano. It appears by cases cases where our law allows it. She can have no cited for the defendant, that in Vermont and Wiscon- greater right in this State than a married woman sin a piano is not deemed to be an article of house- residing here, and our law has provided no remedies, hold furniture. Dunlap v. Edgerton, 30 Vt. 224; nor mode of suing or being sued, for foreigners, Tanner V. Billings, 18 Wis. 163. We think, how different from those applicable to our own citizens ever, that the question may be decided differently in similar cases." This is distinguishable from Milaccording as the habits and usages of society differ | liken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374; S. C., 28 Am. Rep.
statute referred to appears to be intended as a re Rep. 251. In the former case, a wife domiciled in
Massachusetts made a contract in Maine, valid benefit of the family, and ought to be liberally con- there but invalid in Massachusetts when made, for strued.” A music teacher's piano is exempt as an coverture; but the contract subsequently becoming implement of business. Amend v. Murphy, 69 Ill. valid by law in Massachusetts, it was held that it
might be enforced there. In the latter, a wife, in
Massachusetts, signed a note dated and written in In Hayden v. Stone, 91, A and B his wife made
Maine, and sent it there; held enforceable in Maine, and delivered their negotiable promissory note to although void in Massachusetts. the plaintiff. The note was made in Massachusetts where the parties resided, and was valid there. In King v. Batterson, 101, the defendant wrote to Suit on this note was brought in Rhode Island, the A that if B contracted with him for certain goods, writ being served on the husband by attaching his 1 to be paid for out of certain moneys, he would guarantee the faithful performance of the contract. The consent written on the policy. The insurance clause goods were furnished not by A, but by the plaintiff. was written; the exempting clause was printed. Held, (1) that the offer was conditional, and did not The insured kept for sale both turpentine and bentake effect without notice of acceptance; (2) that the zine, without such consent. Held, that the policy plaintiff could not maintain an action on a transfer was avoided, although those articles might be part of the guaranty. The court said: “The instrument of the merchandise usually kept in such stores. or writing relied on is not an absolute undertaking The court said: “There is certainly no repugnancy to pay for certain goods if the buyer does not. It in agreeing to insure a general stock of merchanis an offer made to the seller to be bound if the pur-dise subject to the condition that gunpowder, petrochaser will comply with a certain condition. We leum, turpentine, and benzine, shall not form part think that being an offer, the defendant was enti- of such stock. Surely there is nothing so unusual tled to notice at any rate that the condition had in reservations and conditions in contracts as to been complied with, on which condition he was to make them the subjects of unusual construction or become liable. It is not an absolute promise to pay of extraordinary consideration. Surely, without for such advances as a person may make to another, repugnancy, one may contract for the sale of a where the only condition, if it can be called a con- plantation of one hundred acres of land reserving dition, is that the guarantee shall furnish the goods; thereout ten acres. Or suppose the contract in conbut there is another condition, that a certain prom- troversy to be for the sale of this general stock of ise was to be made by the purchaser to pay out of merchandise, excepting the articles above mencertain funds, and the guarantor had a right to tioned, could any doubt but that the exception was know that this promise was made in a manner to be good ?" available to him. See cases cited in Brandt on The court relied on Insurance Co. v. Kroegher, 83 Suretyship, $$ 159, 161-3. There must always be Penn. St. 64; S. C., 24 Am. Rep. 147. But that an acceptance, but this may be express or implied. was not the case of an insurance of general merAnd if the guaranty be by letter for a future opera- chandise usually kept in a country store, but of a tion, especially of uncertain amount, then there “stock of merchandise contained in store.” As should be distinct notice of acceptance. The guar-counsel argued, in the principal case: "These are antor should have an opportunity to know his lia- not words descriptive of a class of goods. It was bility and provide for it. And unless the transac-argued that the word merchandise meant such as is tion is such that it of itself gives him all the knowl- usually kept in a country store, and here is where edge he needs at a proper time,' then he should have the case failed. They asked to have implied what distinct notice. 2 Pars. on Cont. *14. And the we have expressed.". relations of the parties, nearness of residence, are In Citizens' Insurance Co. v. McLaughlin, 53 Penn. often mentioned as circumstances to be considered. St. 485, the insurance was of a patent leather manAnd see 1 Chit, on Cont. (11th ed.) 742, note; Whit ufactory. The policy permitted five barrels of benney v. Groot, 24 Wend. 82, 84; 2 Am. Lead. Cas.zole in a detached shed, but classed oils among haz75.” “Ordinarily, a guaranty is not negotiable. ardous and prohibited risks. The court said: "The It may indeed be made so, if such appears to be the company could not have expected” the business “to intention of the guarantor. It may not be addressed be suspended, nor to be carried on in any other than to any particular person. It may be an offer ad- the customary modes.” “The words of the policy dressed to all the world, as in the case of a reward descriptive of the subject-matter of the insurance, offered. But if addressed to a particular person, as are the buildings of their tannery and patent in this case, we think it cannot be transferred so as leather manufactory,' and it must be intended that to enable another to sue upon it in his own name. these words included whatever, not expressly exThere may be good reasons why the guarantor cepted, was necessary and essential in conducting should be willing to deal with one person and not such a business." Citing the Harper case, infra. with another; and there may be equities, or other In Franklin Fire Insurance Co. v. Updegraff, 43 dealings, between the guarantor and the guarantee | Penn. St. 350, the insurance was on merchandise which the former may desire to provide for, and such as is usually kept in country stores. Hardhas a right to provide for. Brandt on Suretyship, ware, china, glassware, looking-glasses, etc., were $$ 96, 97; Taylor v. Wetmore, 10 Ohio, 490; Bleeker classed in the policy among hazardous risks, to be v. Hyde, 3 McLean, 279." As to the latter holding, | inserted in the policy, or the policy would be see note, 28 Am. Rep. 347.
avoided. Held, that they were covered, if usually
kept in country stores, and this was a question of INSURANCE ON STOCK OF GOODS - PAR- | fact. TICULAR EXCEPTION.
In Steinbach v. La Fayette Fire Insurance Co., 54
N. Y. 90, the court said, by Reynolds, C.: "The IN Lancaster Fire Insurance Co. v. Lenheim, 89 | plaintiff was insured for one year against fire, on I Penn. St. 497, the policy insured a stock of his stock of fancy goods, toys, and other articles in " general merchandise of all kinds usually kept in his line of business, in his store in the city of Bala country retail store," "except as hereinafter pro- timore, in his occupancy as a German jobber and vided.” Immediately following this was an exemp- importer, and he was privileged to keep fire-cracktion from liability for loss where turpentine or ben- ers on sale. It was provided in the policy that if zine were deposited, stored, kept or used, without the premises should be used for the purpose of car