Burlington Insurance v. Brockway

Citations

• 138 Ill. 644
• 28 N.E. 799

Syllabus

<p>1. Pibe insurance — continuance of occupancy of building—policy construed. A policy of insurance of a building occupied as a storehouse and as a dwelling, against loss by fire for one year from the date of the policy, contained a clause that “if the premises hereby insured are or shall hereafter become vacant or unoccupied * * * without notice, and consent indorsed on the policy, the same shall be void Held, that the abandonment of the building as a residence before a loss would not render the policy void and defeat a recovery by the assured, the building continuing to be occupied as a storehouse.</p> <p>2. A statement in a policy of insurance, or the application therefor, as to the manner in which the building insured is occupied, is not a warranty that it shall continue to be so used during the existence of the policy. It is a warranty only as to the present use. To constitute it a continuing warranty it must be so expressed by apt words.</p> <p>3. Appeal—reviewing questions of fact. The force of the statute prohibiting this court from questioning in a class of cases the determination of the Appellate Court upon controverted questions of fact, can not be avoided on the theory that the plaintiff, by his testimony, admitted facts that wo.uld defeat a recovery, when such testimony is susceptible of a different construction.</p>