power of the state. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. R.
145, with respect to religious belief as affected by the first
amendment to the national constitution. But, under the
view we take, it is unnecessary to consider the question now.
We are satisfied that the provisions of the act in question
do not violate any provision of the national constitution or
of the treaty with China, and that there is no ground for
discharging the prisoner by this court.
Let the writ be discharged, and the prisoner remanded to
the custody of the officer from whom he was taken.
Washburnv.The Miami Valley Ins. Co. and others.[1]
(Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio.———, 1880.)
Insurance—Conditions in Policy—Explosion.—Where a policy of insurance against loss by fire contains a condition that the insurance company shall not be liable for any loss or damage occasioned by explosion of any kind, unless fire ensues, and then for the loss and damage by fire only, and a fire originates in the insured premises which produces an explosion by which that property is destroyed, such destruction is a
loss by fire within the meaning of the policy.
Same—Same—Same.—An exception in a policy of fire insurance that the “company will not be liable for loss or damage occasioned by the explosion of a steam boiler, gunpowder, or any other explosive substance, except only such loss as shall result from fire that may ensue therefrom; nor shall the company be liable for any loss by such fire, unless privilege shall have been given in the policy to keep such articles,” etc. Held, that this exception must be viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, and that, from the nature of the business of the plaintiff, the parties must have contemplated the presence in the structure insured of the explosive substance known as flour dust, and that, therefore, its presence was not within the terms of such exception.
Same—Explosive Substances—Incident to Business carried on. Explosions produced incidentally from the manufacturing which the parties contemplate would be carried on in the building insured, and which are an inseparable or necessary result of the process of manufacture, are not within such exceptions.
These actions were founded upon policies of insurance
against fire issued by the defendants to the plaintiff upon
↑Prepared by Messrs. Florien Giauque and J. C. Harper, of Cincinnati, Ohio.
