Orient Ins. v. Leonard

Citations

• 120 F. 808
• 57 C.C.A. 176
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4689

Syllabus

<p>1. Former Appeal — Decision—Law of the Case.</p> <p>Where, on a prior appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, it was held that a loss by fire ensuing and connected with an explosion outside plaintiff's building, by which a hole was made in the wall of the building, through, which the fire entered and destroyed the property insured, was within the provisions of the policy, such decision was the law of the case, and a motion to direct a verdict for defendant on a subsequent trial, after-plaintiff’s introduction of evidence to prove such facts, was properly denied.</p> <p>2. Insurance Policy — Cause of Loss — Evidence—Instructions.</p> <p>Where, in an action on a policy excluding losses resulting from explosion unless fire ensued, and from the falling of the building, defendant claimed that the falling of the wall of the building was due to defects- or overloading, while plaintiff claimed that it was the result of an explosion in a neighboring building, and was immediately followed by fire, and the evidence on such theories was sharply conflicting, an instruction, that if the building, or some part thereof, fell by reason of some concussion occurring from without, or from fire outside or inside the building, and plaintiff had proved his contentions that, through such explosion orlare, fire was communicated to plaintiff’s building, and his stock was destroyed, plaintiff was entitled to recover, but that, if the building fell-by reason of its own defects or by overloading, or both, plaintiff could, not recover for the fire loss, sufficiently presented the issues of both parties to the jury.</p> <p>8. Same — Evidence.</p> <p>Where, in an action on a policy, plaintiff contended that the fire was-occasioned by an explosion of mill dust in an adjoining mill, evidence as-to the condition of the mill at and before the alleged explosion, ’the amount of mill dust collected, and the omission of known appliances to-prevent the escape of such dust, was admissible.</p> <p>4 Same