United States Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co.

GRAVES, X

(dissenting).

The judgment of the trial court should have been affirmed in toto, it seems to me, for these two reasons: (1) Ooncededly, the policy sued on covered the 241 bales of “transit cotton” burned in cars on the premises of the compress company at Harlingen, unless at the time of the fire it was “under the protection of any other policy of insurance,” and the Camden policy — solely depended upon as constituting that protection — did not do so, because, by its express terms as written, it applied to such transit cotton “only while in the custody of the assured,” whereas this…