2/0 On the VolaliUty and Ivflammahility 



house, and the new house. The insurance in this case was ef- 

 fected on the giindiiig-house ; and though the fire did not ori- 

 ginate in it, tlie question was, whether they did not all form one 

 building : they were all surrounded by a common wall ; they all 

 belonged to one person, carrying on one trade; a pump was 

 worked in this, every species of work was done in that, and there 

 was a mill in another ; they all communicated by a door with 

 the house insured. But the buildings were improperly described, 

 because it appeared they communicated with others which were 

 not specified in the policy. He was instructed to say, that the so- 

 ciety would not have made this objection to the validity of the po- 

 licy, if it had only omitted to state the communication between the 

 grinding-house and the long-house; for they had formerly insured 

 the long-house by a separate policy, and therefore knew before^ 

 hand that it was separated from the other by an iron door. They 

 therefore would have waved this objection, though in point of 

 law they were not obliged to carry in their memory the descrip- 

 tions contained in every policy that they had ever underwritten. 

 There had, however, been no former policy describing the con- 

 nexion between the grinding-house and the new house. The 

 learned counsel then read part of the policy executed on the 

 grinding-house on the 21st of October last, which was merely, 

 he said, a transcript of a former policy, and made no mention of 

 a communication either with the long-house or the new house. 

 To the omission of the former they would not have objected, for 

 the reason which he had already assigned ; but he contended 

 that the policy was defective in omitting to state the connexion 

 between the grinding-house and the new house, though it ap- 

 peared that they were connected by iron doors, and that every 

 story of the one communicated with the corresponding story of 

 the other. His learned friend had omitted noticing this circum- 

 stance in his opening speech, reserving it, no doubt, for the con- 

 clusion, when the attention of the court and the jury should be 

 fatigued by the length of the trial, and when it might perhaps 

 have some chance of being glossed over. In the printed notices 

 of the society, it was laid down as a regulation, that " extraor- 

 dinary risks must be insured by a special agreement." Now, 

 this notice was given to the public for the express purpose of in- 

 ducing them to give correct descriptions of the premises to be 

 insured ; and then the society were to be left to judge of the risk. 

 It was evident that, as the risk was increased by the number of 

 stoves on the premises, it was necessary to state the number of 

 these stoves, in order to enable the party insuring to judge of the 

 risk. Whether, if in this case a correct description had been 

 given, competition vvouki have induced the defendants to take the 

 insurance with the additional risk, was a consideration with which 



the 



