i 30 , e , ,. , ~ ,_ _; FEDERAL REPORTER,   , s _
him -the money, but simplysaid to him,;"Youmake payment, and I
.wil.l,-settle with you afterwards}? The case isone where the insured
I never jhas paid, and where the company-has never received, the money,
and where -there is no showing of such reasonable diligence as excuses
the party from non-payment.- That was my impression yesterday morn-
ing, and I studied it over in the afternoon, and examined the authori-
ties cited by counsel this morning, and still adhere to that belief, and so
shall instruct the jury to bring in a verdict for the defendant. You may
prepare and submit a verdict for the jury. A 1 _
Lnrnnsnnr & McDowm.r. Srovn Co. v. Fmnmens ms. C0. or
Banrmoam.
(Oweuit Court, D. Maryland. May 17, 1888.)
INSURANOE—CONTRIBUTIONePBO Rau C1.susm—Avo11>.e.1~zo1:: or- Pnron Ponrcv-
, Inonmasm or Rrsx. Q »
The goods destroyed were stored in warehouses, the rear of which, at the
time the prior insurance was taken out, .was connected by an iron door on the
fourth floor with two buildings occupied by a candy manufacturer. who also
made use of the fourth door in rear of the warehouses. Appliances were aft-
erwards put into these·two buildings for the purposes of a steam bakery, and
» communications made with adjoining premises. The insurance company hav-
, ing refused to issue a policy allowing this occupation, the assured applied to
another company, which took the risk, and issued a policy containing the usual
‘ contribution proviso as to additional insurance, prior or subsequent. This
policy, in describing the premises, referred to the steam bakery, and the pre-
mium charged in it was double that of the (prior policy. Fire spread to the
warehouses, and the goods were destroye . He d, that the first policy was
l V avoided by the alteration, and that there was, therefore, no double insurance
within the terms of the second.
At Law. ,
Marshall dc Hall, for plaintiff.
George Hawkins Williams, for defendant.
Bonn, J. This is a suit at law upon a hre insurance policy, submit-
ted to thecourt without the intervention of a jury. The issuing of the
policy, and the loss by nre of the goods insured to the amount under-
written by the defendant, are admitted. The policy contains the usual
clause providing that if there be other insurance the company issuing it
would not be responsible for a· greater proportion of the loss than the
sum insured by its policy bore to the whole amount of insurance, whether
prior or subsequent thereto. And the defense to this action is that there
was other insurance at the time of the loss by fire.
r To sustain this plea the defendant produces a policy of insurance is-
sued by the Orient Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., on the 80th
of April, 1886, for $2,500, which, by a renewal certificate, it appears