Fitzgerald v. Atlanta Home Insurance

Insurance—separate valuation of different kinds of property affecting forfeiture-violation of a condition as to incumJyrances — a mortgage covering both real and' personal property—shipping cases, bottles and casks are not fixtures. Where a policy of fire insurance covers different kinds of property, each separately valued, the contract is severable even if but one single premium is paid, and the amount insured is the sum total of the valuation; hut where the arti'cles are not separately valued the contract is entire and indivisible, and a cause of forfeiture in respect to part of the property affects the entire.contract. An instrument in the form of a real estate mortgage which covers both real and personal property is, so far as the personal property is concerned, a chattel mortgage within the meaning of that term as used in the clause of the New York standard fire insurance policy, which provides, that the policy shall be void if the subject of insurance be personal property and be or become incumbered by a chattel mortgage. A mortgage on property covering both real and personal estate is an incumbrance upon the property included therein whether such property be considered real or personal. Shipping cases, bottles and casks, used in connection with a brewery for holding and shipping the products thereof, are not fixtures.

Appeal by the defendant, the Atlanta Home Insurance Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rensselaer on the 29th day of October, 1900, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 29th day of October, 1900, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes. In the year 1895 one Michael Fitzgerald, the husband of the plaintiff, erected a brewery building on lands owned by him at Hoosick Falls, N. Y., and placed in it machinery and appliances for the conduct of a brewing business.. Some of the machinery and appliances were affixed to the building, and other articles, such as casks, bottles, packing cases, etc., were not affixed to the building. In that year he borrowed of one Tracy $6,000, and as security therefor executed a mortgage on the real property with the appurtenances, describing the real property by metes and bounds, but did not in terms refer to or describe the fixtures and other property used in the brewing business. Another mortgage on the same property was subsequently given by him. In 1896 judgments were ol^tained against him, and the same not being paid a supplementary proceeding was instituted and a receiver obtained therein. The Brooklyn Trust Company became the owner of the said $6,000 mortgage, and in 1897- commenced an action to foreclose said mortgage, making the subsequent mortgagee, judgment creditors and the receiver in supplementary proceedings parties thereto, and a sale was had under the judgment in that action, and the property sold to the plaintiff for $7,385. The description in the deed from the referee was the same as that contained in the mortgage. A few days thereafter the Brooklyn Trust Company conveyed the property by the same description to the plaintiff in this action for said sum of $7,385, and the plaintiff executed to such company a mortgage in which mortgage the said Michael Fitzgerald joined, conveying to the company the same property described in the deed to the plaintiff by the same description, and also including therein certain appliances in, upon and about the said described premises connected therewith and used therein, specifically enumerating them in said mortgage. Said mortgage contained a. further description as follows, viz. : “ And all personal property of every name,, nature and description now in and about the above-described premises, being the Fitzgerald Brewery, called the Hoosick Falls Brewing Company, or in any way used therein, and also any and all property hereafter acquired and. used on the said premises or in the said brewery for the manufacture and sale of beer, ale and lager. This mortgage being intended to cover the entire brewery plant of what is called the Hoosick Brewing Company, and all the apparatus, machinery, tools and appliances; and all and every part of the appliances, apparatus, machinery, tools, etc., above specified in the said brewery and used in and about the said brewery plant are hereby agreed to be and are considered as fixtures, and as a- part of the said real estate.” The mortgage is dated the 20th day of May, 1898, and was recorded in the clerk’s office of the county of Rensselaer on the,25th day of May, 1898, and a copy thereof was duly filed as a chattel mortgage in the town clerk’s office of the town of Hoosick, N. Y., on the 24th day of May, 1898. ■ On the 24th day of October,. 1898,. the plaintiff and Michael Fitzgerald, her husband, executed and delivered to one Charles H. McLaughlin a mortgage for the sum of $840 on said real and personal property by a description substantially the same as that contained in .the mortgage to the said trust company, which mortgage to the said McLaughlin was recorded in the clerk’s office of the county of. Rensselaer on the 2d day of November, 1898. On the 4th day of" April, 1899, plaintiff obtained from the defendant a policy of insurance on property described therein as follows: “ The following described property while located and contained as described herein and not elsewhere, to wit: On engine, boiler and fixtures, ice machine, connections and appurtenances thereto, pipes, icé tanks, filter, hose, mash machine, hopper, scales and platform to same, bottles, Casks, chip casks, temperators, Baudlet cooler and surface coolér, copper false bottoms and packing cases — all while contained in the four-story and basement brick, tin roof brewery building, situate on the east bank of the Hoosick river south of River street, Hoosick Falls, N. Y.” The policy was of the standard form of the State of New York. It contained a provision that the company should not be liable for a greater proportion of the loss than the amount thereby insured should bear to the whole insurance covering the property. It also contained a provision that unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed thereon or added thereto, the entire policy should be void (among other things) : 1. If the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership. 2. If the subject of insurance be personal property and be or become incumbered by a chattel mortgage. The policy also provided: “ This entire policy shall be void if the insured has concealed or misrepresented in writing, or otherwise, any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof; or if the interest of the insured in the property be not truly stated herein; or in case of any fraud or false swearing by the insured touching any matter relating to this insurance, or the subject thereof, whether before or after a loss.” Plaintiff also procured two other policies of insurance on the same property insured by the defendant. These policies were each for $150, one issued by the Farmers’ Insurance Company and the other by the Colonial Insurance Company. The plaintiff also procured from the Hartford Insurance Company a policy of $5,000, of which $2,000 was upon stock contained in the brewery and $3,000 was upon property described as follows: “On tubs, copper kettle, pumps, elevator, shafting, belting, pulleys, hangers, gears, steam and water pipes, and other fixtures, tools and implements (not including ice machine, scales and cooler), casks and kegs.” The plaintiff also obtained- insurance on the building aggregating $8,500. On the 21st day of April, 1899, the building and contents were substantially destroyed by fire. The defendant’s agent at Troy, N. Y., was notified of the fire soon after it occurred and communicated with the defendant, but written notice of loss was not sent to the defendant by the plaintiff until the 16th day of May, 1899. On the 14th day of June, 1899, the plaintiff at Troy, N. T., mailed sworn proofs of loss to the defendant at Atlanta, Ga., which were received by it in due course of mail. In her proofs of loss, among other things, she states, “ That in addition to the amount covered by said policy of said company (defendant company) there was fifteen hundred ($1,500) dollars other concurrent insurance made thereon as specified in the accompanying schedule, showing the name of each company and amounts of each policy; besides which there was no other insurance thereon.” Nothing was said in the proofs of loss about the policy of the Hartford Insurance Company or in regard to the policies on the building. She also says in her proofs of loss. “ that there was no encumbrance on the said property.” The defendant refused to pay the loss and this action was brought.