{
  "id": 8653737,
  "name": "R. D. JOHNSTON v. NIAGARA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnston v. Niagara Fire Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1896-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "643",
  "last_page": "646",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 N.C. 643"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 403,
    "char_count": 6106,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4428949397993273e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6534852031913829
    },
    "sha256": "3a89438ca4e52fcb0aaa46b25a2d2f4a2e78d09a241d5913124f00f8415479c7",
    "simhash": "1:f3f36c1e937f54e1",
    "word_count": 1000
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:06.557243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. D. JOHNSTON v. NIAGARA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nWhen there is a conflict between the written part of the policy and the printed part, as for instance if the \u201c tailor\u2019s patterns \u201d had been named as insured, and the printed general exception had excluded any liability, as it does for \u201c patterns,\u201d then the written part of the policy would govern. 1 May Insurance, Sec. 117, and numerous cases cited; Wood Fire Insurance, p. 153, note 3. Or if it were doubtful whether the \u201c patterns \u201d were embraced in the general exception, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the assured. 1 May, supra, Sec. 175, and cases cited. But, here, the propert) insured is described as the plaintiff\u2019s \u201cstock of cloth, cassimeres, clothing, trimmings and all other articles usual in a merchant tailor\u2019s establishment.\u201d \u201c Patterns \u201d are not named as being insured. They could only come with the words \u201c all other articles,\u201d and when that construction is asked to be placed upon the contract, we find in another part of the contract an express stipulation that \u201cpatterns\u201d are not to be construed as covered by that policy. It is not the case of a conflict between the'words of the written and printed parts of the policy, nor is it the case of a doubtful exception, but upon the face of the policy \u201c patterns \u201d are not specially included by name, and they ?ire specially agreed to be excluded.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Watson c&~ Buxton and Jones <& Patterson, for plaintiff (appellant).",
      "Messrs. Qlenn <& Manly, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. D. JOHNSTON v. NIAGARA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.\nAction on Insurance Policy \u2014 Loss hy Fire \u2014 Construction of Policy \u2014 \u201c Patterns.\u201d\n1. Where there is a conflict between the written part of a policy of insurance and the printed part, the former will govern.\n2. Where the written part of an insurance policy insured plaintiff\u2019s \u201c stock of cloth, cassimeres, clothing, trimming\u2019s and all other articles usual in a merchant tailor\u2019s establishment,\u201d and the printed part of the policy provided that \u201cpatterns\u201d were not covered by the policy ; Held, in an action to recover for the destruction of plaintiff\u2019s stock of cloths, &e., including a lot of \u201ctailor\u2019s patterns,\u201d that no recovery can be had for the latter, they being not only not specially included but specially excluded.\nCivil action, tried before Brown, J., and a jury, at December Special Term, 1895, of Forsyth Superior Court.\nThe action was to recover loss by lire. The policy of insurance introduced by plaintiff contained the following provisions :\n\u201c This Company shall not be liable for loss to accounts, bills, currency, deeds, evidences of debt, money, notes or securities; nor, unless liability is specifically assumed hereon, for loss to awnings, bullion, casts, curiosities, drawings, dies, implements, jewels, manuscripts, medals, models, patterns, pictures, scientific apparatus, signs, store or office furniture or fixtures, sculpture, tools, or property held on storage or repair.\u201d\nThe type-written description of property is as follows : \u201c On his stock of cloths, cassimeres, clothing, trimmings, and all other articles usual to a merchant tailor\u2019s establishment, contained in the two-[story] brick and frame shingle-roof building occupied by assured and situated on the corner of Third and Liberty streets, Winston, N. 0.\u201d Seventy-five per cent, co-insurance clause attached to policy.\nThe plaintiff claimed damages on his suitings $654, and on his trimmings $98.83, making a total on suitings and trimmings $652.83 ; and on patterns as follows:\n481 coat patterns, @ $1.-... $481 00\n30 overcoat patterns, @ $1.50.. 45 00\n450 pants patterns,\u00a9 50 cents.\u201e. 225 00\n180 vest patterns, @ 50 cents. 90 00\nTotal amount of damages claimed lor patterns $841 00\nThe following was the testimony as to patterns:\n\u201c Patterns are made after I take the measure. I then cut \u00e1 pattern out of paper, called pattern paper, for the customer; then cut out the cloth and baste up suit, and if suit does not fit I alter the pattern to suit; aftei making the suit I mark customer\u2019s name on the pattern and file it away. I had patterns for customers who buy my clothes. I cut them myself; did not buy them ; they were useful to me in making clothes for my regular business. All of them are destroyed. I have customers in Goldsboro and Wilson, and other places in Eastern'North Carolina. I came from that section. I worked about twenty hands and did all the cutting myself. I could not well get along without patterns.\u201d\nUpon cross-examination plaintiff testifies : \u201c I use these patterns for making clothes for other persons besides those for whom they were cut. Some of these patterns were eighteen years old. I do not know how many customers are dead for whom these patterns were cut. I keep no record ; there may be 350 dead; the patterns were worth something, even if they were dead. Styles change every year.\u201d\n'William Beard testified : \u201c Patterns are used in a mer-\nchant tailor\u2019s establishment\u2019; all tailors usually keep patterns'; can\u2019t well get along without them.\u201d\nThe defendant introduced no testimony.\nThe issues and responses were as follows :\n\u201c 1. Did the plaintiff comply on his part with the stipulations in the policy regarding the appraisement and arbitration ? Answer, \u2018 Yes.\u2019\n\u201c 2. Did the plaintiff furnish the inventory required by the policy? Answer, \u2018 Yes.\u2019\n\u201c 3. Did the defendant, through its agent, waive the stipulation as to inventory? Answer, \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c 4. What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover on account of loss under said policy ? Answer, \u2018 Loss and damages on account of merchandise and goods, $752. Loss and damage on account of patterns, $360.\u2019 \u201d\nThe plaintiff moved for a judgment on the verdict. His Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for damages and loss on goods and merchandise, but refused to give judgment for loss on account of destruction of patterns. The jury having found the value of the patterns $360, and there being $2,500 insurance in all, and the defendant company having issued its policy for $2,000, the motion of plaintiff which was refused was for four-fifths of $360. The plaintiff excepted to the judge\u2019s ruling and appealed.\nMessrs. Watson c&~ Buxton and Jones <& Patterson, for plaintiff (appellant).\nMessrs. Qlenn <& Manly, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0643-01",
  "first_page_order": 679,
  "last_page_order": 682
}