Slinkard

Action on insurance policy for loss of a combined harvester by fire. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from an order denying motion for new trial defendant appeals.

Defendant issued its policy to plaintiff to cover a period of three months from June 25, 1896, at noon, “against all direct loss or damage by fire, except as hereinafter provided . . . , while located and contained as described herein, and not elsewhere, to wit, iioelve hundred dollars on combined harvester,. Haines-Houser, makers, while in use in Tulare County, Galif.” et cetera.

The court found that at the time the policy was issued the harvester “was being actually used in the field by plaintiff for the purpose of harvesting grain upon his ranch in Tulare county, and continued to be so used by him until the twenty-fifth day of July, 1896, when said harvester was placed in a shed upon the said ranch -of plaintiff; .... that the placing of said harvester in such shed was the usual manner in which such ma *597 ckinery is taken care of and provided in such neighborhood, and was a proper and careful manner for the safekeeping of such property.” The court found that the risk was not thereby increased, but…