Lnrsiuunr ar M’nowm.r. srovn co. v. FIRE}/IAN,S ms. co. 31
was continuedwin force until the 11th day of August, 1887, at noon.
The nre occurred on the morning of the 4th day of August, 1887,.not
originating imthe premises where the property insured was situated, but
spreading thereto from other buildings a short distance from them. Each
of these policies insured stoves, castings, tin—ware, and other articles in
the line of business of the plaintiffs contained in warehouses, described
similarly in each, except that defendant’s policy describes the rear build-
ing on the premises as " communicating with building Nos. 21 and 28
East Pratt street, and together`are'occupied by a candy manufacturer
and steam bakery," while the policy of the Orient Company describes it
as communicating by an iron door on the fourth door with buildings
Nos. 145 and 147 Pratt street, occupied by a candy manufacturer, who
occupiesralso the fourth iioor of said rear building. Nos. 14,5 ana 147
are the samepremises as Nos. 21 and 23 in defendant’s policy. It will
beseen from this statement of the material parts of the policy thatthe
rear building was connected with Nos. 21 and 23 in the Orieut’s policy
upon its fourthlfloor only, and that it was occupied by a candy manu-
facturer on that floor, while under the defcndant’s policy it was not only
so occupied, but likewise by a steam bakcryl Application was made to
the Orient to issue atpolicy allow-ing this occupation,. but it was refused..
The premium charged by the defendant company upon the risk it as- 4
sumed was at the rate,of$1.50 per $100, while that premiurnwhichhthe
Orient charged, prior tosuch occupation by a steam bakery, was at the
rate of 75,,cents° per‘$100. To consider the Orient’s policy additional
insurancetunder these circumstanceswould do violence to the facts. @ To
constitute double insurance, not only musty the thing insured and the
parties be the same, but the same risk must be assumed. It is clear
that the rear building occupied by a candy manufacturer on the fourth
f:l0or,~whi1e the other fioors are occupied as places of storage, does not
offer the same risk of nre as it does when it becomes a steamrbakery,
with the necessary accompaniment of ovens for baking, which the evi-
dence shows were placed in this. And though it be true that no bread
or cakes had been baked on the premises up to the time of the fire, yet
other communication had been made with adjoining premises, and nre
had beenmade in the bakery oven to dry it before use. And though it
is likewise true that the tire which occasioned the loss did not originate
in this rear building, that is not necessary to avoid the policy; The
change in the occupation ofthe building was material to the risk. It
increased it, of which fact the premium charged by defendant, while not
A conclusive, is significant, evidence; and, whether the tire occurred by
reason of the increased risk or not, the policy of the Orient did not as-°
sume it, and was void the moment the change in occupation took place.
With thisview of the evidence and finding of facts the court is of opin-
ion there was no insurance on the goods and- merchandise belonging. to
the plaintiff lost on the morning of the 4th of August, 1887, other than
that of the defendant; y   · » t ‘ V ,
Judgment will be entered for the plaintiff for the wholeamount of the
loss as ascertained by the adjustersmentioned in the policy of the Fire·