Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/201

sus V. aoemi vaxtiim DUS. oo. 1S7 �Sus V. EooBE' Williams Ins» Co. �{Circuit Court, D. Hev) Hampshire. June 29, 1880.) �1, H!Q1!ITKACT8— CONSTKUCTION. �Where the meaaing of the terms of a written ,contract is clear, evidence of estrinsic circumstances is inadmissible for the purpbse of varying such liican- .: ing. �3. SamB— FlllB INSDRAUCE— MOUTGAOOB AND MoETOAGEK. �The policy in suit, by which the dwelling-hoiise and fumiture of 0. wa» insured, was payable, in case of loss, to S. One of the conditions in the policy tras that if the assured should subsequently make any other insurance on the property, without the assurer's consent, the policy siiould be void. • There was evidence that B., the plaintifC, held a mortgage on the house, and that he pro- cured the insurance and paid the premium. C. procured insurance on his interest as mortgagor after the date of this policy. Hdd, the meaning of the contract olearly is that C. is the assured ; and, this being so, evidence of extrin- sic circumstances is inadmissible to change it. �Ey the policy in suit, Abraham Cole was insured $1,500 on his two- fltory dwelling-house, ell, and barn connected, occupied in the sum- mer season for a summer boarding-house, and in the winter by the assured as a dwelling-house, situated near Gorham, New Hampshire, and $500 on houaehold fumiture in the house and ell, payable in case of loss to George B. Sias, "as his interest may appear." [t was stipulated that "if the assured shall have, or shall hereaftoi make, any other insurance upon the property insured, or any part thereof, without the consent of the company in writing," the policy should be void. There was evidence that Sias, the plaintiff, held a mortgage on the house ; that he had procured the insurance through a sub- agent of the company and paid the premium. The principal agent, who issued the policy at the request of the sub-agent, did not know who procured the policy or who paid the premium. Cole testified that he procured insurance on his interest as mortgagor after the date of the policy. The iearned judge ruled, for the purposes of the trial, that the insurance was on the interest of the plaintifiE as mortgagee, and would not be affected by the insurance af terwards made by Cole ; and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon this question. The defendants moved for a new trial be- fore Judge Lowell. �S. C. Eastman, of Concord, for defendant. �W. J. Copeland, of Great Palis, for plaintiff. �LowELL, C. J. This case has been thoroughly argued, and all the authorities which I shall refer to have been cited by counsel. �The first point taken by the plaintiff is that the construction of tho ��� �