Cartier v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

It is said for the plaintiff that the excepting clause of the policy deals with a household of which the insured is the head and more than a member. To support the claim it is argued that since the clause expressly includes servants of a household within its membership and since such servants are only servants of its head and not of its other members, it follows that the insured must be its head within a proper meaning of the clause. And even if the meaning is doubtful, it is urged that the same result should be reached as the one more probably understood by the insured.

Argument is also…