Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/486

 ALBION LEAD tTOBES V. WILtilAHSBCBa OITT F. INS. 00. 479 �parties, pending tîie preparation of this cause, as to what ig reasonable compensation for the services performed by the defendant company, and what is a reasonable rebate to be allowed for sucb aecessorial service, such difference shall be referred to the court, after due notice, and pending such ref- ference the complainant shall not be disturbed by the defend- ant company in the transaction of express business over its Une." ���Albion Lead Woeks v. Williamsburg City Firb Inbubakob �Company. �{Circuit Court, D. MoMoehutetts. May 7, 1880.) �iNsnHAiîcE — Ohai, Application— PoECE-PuMP — CoNTiNuiNaWARKANTT. True construction of the ingurance policy in this case hdd to be an agree- ment to insure, according to th« policy, and not the plan, the building shown upon a written plan used and referred to in making an oral appli- cation for insurance ; and the fact that a force- pump was marked on such plan did not create a continuing warranty that any particular kind of pump should always be maintained ready for use. �BÀMB — CoNTramirQ Warkakty.— To make words used in an application for insurance in the present tense a continuing warranty for the future, it would seem f rom the weight of authority that the fact referred to should be an important one, as the employment of a watchman, and if it is not important it will not be deemed such warranty. �Samb— Same— Oral Btatement of Fact.— Where the con tract of insur- ance is in writing it would seem that an oral statement of fact in regard to the risk in the application could not be construed into a continuing warranty. �Ihsuranoe— Incbbabe op Bise. — If there is a single change in a build- ing the jury are to say whether there is an increase of risk; but where there are two or more changea, one of which increases the risk, it is no answer to the f orfeiture provided in case of increase of risk, to saj that Bomething else diminishes it. �Same — Samb. — An insurance policy provided that the policy should be void if there was any increase of risk from means within the control of the insured. Held, that such condition referred to some permanent change purposely undertaken, and not to something the resuit of mere negligence on the part of the assured, suchi as neglecting to have a pump repaired, etc. ����