8/9/2015 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
1/111.2.3.4.5.[No. 33637. December 31, 1931]ANG GIOK CHIP, doing
business under the name and style of
HuaBeeKongSi,plaintiffandappellee,vs.SPRINGFIELDFIRE&MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, defendant and appellant.INSURANCE; SECTION 65,
INSURANCE ACT, ACT No. 2427,AS AMENDED, CONSTRUED; VALIDITY OF A
WARRANTYIN THE FORM OF A RIDER TO AN INSURANCE POLICY.Awarranty
referred to in the policy as forming part of the contract
ofinsurance and in the form of a rider to the insurance policy is
validand sufficient under section 65 of the Insurance Act.ID.; ID.;
ID.Ariderattachedtothepolicyofinsuranceisapartof the contract, to
the same extent and with like effect as if actuallyembodied
therein.ID.; ID.; ID.Anexpresswarrantymustappearuponthefaceofthe
policy of insurance, or be clearly incorporated therein and madea
part thereof by explicit reference, or by words clearly
evidencingsuch
intention.ID.;ID.;ID.;ACCEPTANCEOFPOLICY.Thereceiptofapolicyofinsurancebytheinsuredwithoutobjectionbindstheacceptor
and the insured to the terms thereof.376376 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
ANNOTATEDAng Giok Chip vs. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance
Co.STATUTES;CONSTRUCTIONOFSTATUTESADOPTEDFROMOTHERSTATES.ThePhilippinelawoninsurancewastaken
verbatim from the law of California. Accordingly, the courtsof the
Philippines should follow in fundamental points at least,
theconstruction placed by California courts on a California
law.8/9/2015 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
2/11APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila.Diaz, J.The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.C.
A. Sobral for appellant.Paredes & Buencamino for appellee.Gibbs
& McDonough and Roman Ozaeta as amici curi.MALCOLM,
J.:Animportantquestioninthelawofinsurance,notheretoforeconsidered
in this jurisdiction and, according to our information,
notdirectlyresolvedinCaliforniafromwhichStatethePhilippineInsuranceActwastaken,mustbedecidedonthisappealforthefutureguidanceoftrialcourtsandofinsurancecompaniesdoingbusinessinthePhilippineIslands.Thisquestion,flatlystated,iswhetherawarrantyreferredtointhepolicyasformingpartofthecontractofinsuranceandintheformofaridertotheinsurancepolicy,isnullandvoidbecausenotcomplyingwiththePhilippineInsurance
Act. The court has had the benefit of instructive briefs
andmemorandafromthepartiesandhasalsobeenassistedbyawellprepared
brief submitted on behalf of amici
curi.Theadmittedfactsarethese:AngGiokChipdoingbusinessunderthenameandstyleofHuaBeeKongSiwasformerlytheowner
of a warehouse situated at No. 643 Calle Reina Regente,
CityofManila.ThecontentsofthewarehousewereinsuredwiththreeinsurancecompaniesforthetotalsumofP60,000.Oneinsurancepolicy,
in the amount of P10,000, was taken out with the
SpringfieldFire&MarineInsuranceCompany.ThewarehousewasdestroyedbyfireonJanuary11,1928;whilethepolicyissuedbythelattercompany
was in force.377VOL. 56, DECEMBER 31, 1931 377Ang Giok Chip vs.
Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance
Co.PredicatedonthispolicytheplaintiffinstitutedactionintheCourtofFirstInstanceofManilaagainstthedefendanttorecoveraproportionalpartofthelosscomingtoP8,170.59.Fourspecialdefenseswereinterposedonbehalfoftheinsurancecompany,onebeingplantedonaviolationofwarrantyFfixingtheamountofhazardous
goods which might be stored in the insured building.
Thetrialjudgeinhisdecisionfoundagainsttheinsurancecompanyonall
points, and gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum
ofP8,188.74. From this judgment the insurance company has
appealed,8/9/2015 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
3/11and it is to the first and fourth errors assigned that we would
addressparticular attention.Considering the result at which we
arrive, it is unnecessary for usto discuss three of the four
special defenses which were made by
theinsurancecompany.Wethink,however,thatitwouldbeareasonabledeductiontoconcludethatmorethan3percentofthetotalvalueofthemerchandisecontainedinthewarehouseconstitutedhazardousgoods,andthatthispercentreachedashighas39.Weplacerelianceontheconsularinvoicesandonthetestimonyoftheadjuster,Herridge.Havingthusswepttoonesideallinterveningobstacles,thelegalquestionrecurs,asstatedinthebeginningofthisdecision,ofwhetherornotwarrantyFwasnulland
void.Toplacethisquestioninitsproperlight,weturntothepolicyissuedbytheSpringfieldFire&MarineInsuranceCompanyinfavor
of the plaintiff. The description of the risk in this policy is
asfollows:"TenthousandpesosPhilippineCurrency.Ongeneralnon-hazardousmerchandise,chieflyconsistingofchucherias,alsoproduce,Cacao,Flour,allthepropertyoftheInsured,orheldbythem
in trust, on commission or on joint account with others, or
forwhich he is responsible, while contained during the currency of
thispolicy in the godown, situate No. 643 Calle Reina Regente. *
**378378 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDAng Giok Chip vs. Springfield
Fire & Marine Insurance
Co."Thispolicyissubjecttothehereonattached'OrdinaryShortPeriodRateScale'WarrantiesA&F,Co-insurancesClause'andThreeFourthsLossClause,'whichareformingpartofsame.Co-insurance
declared:"P20,000.SunInsuranceOfficeLtd.(K&S)."(Italicsinserted.)
Securely pasted on the left hand margin of the face of
thepolicyarefivewarrantiesandspecialclauses.Oneofthemiswarranty F,
specifically referred to on the f ace of the policy, readingin part
as f ollows:"WARRANTY
F"ItisherebydeclaredandagreedthatduringthecurrencyofthispolicynohazardousgoodsbestoredintheBuildingtowhichthis8/9/2015
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
4/11insuranceappliesorinanybuildingcommunicatingtherewith,provided,always,however,thattheInsuredbepermittedtostoreasmallquantityofthehazardousgoodsspecifiedbelow,butnotexceedinginall3percentofthetotalvalueofthewholeofthegoodsormerchandisecontainedinsaidwarehouse,viz;*
**."The applicable law is found in the Insurance Act, Act No.
2427,as amended, section 65
reading:"Everyexpresswarranty,madeatorbeforetheexecutionofapolicy,mustbecontainedinthepolicyitself,orinanotherinstrumentsignedbytheinsuredandreferredtointhepolicy,asmaking
a part of it." As the Philippine law was taken verbatim
fromthelawofCalifornia,inaccordancewithwellsettledcanonsofstatutoryconstruction,thecourtshouldfollowinfundamentalpoints,atleast,theconstructionplacedbyCaliforniacourtsonaCalifornialaw.UnfortunatelytheresearchesofcounselrevealnoauthoritycomingfromthecourtsofCaliforniawhichisexactlyonallfourswiththecasebeforeus.However,therearecertainconsiderationslyingatthebasisofCalifornialawandcertainindicationsintheCaliforniadecisionswhichpointthewayforthedecision
in this case.Section 65 of the Philippine Insurance Act corresponds
to section2605 of the Civil Code of California. The com-379VOL. 56,
DECEMBER 31, 1931 379Ang Giok Chip vs. Springfield Fire &
Marine Insurance
Co.mentsoftheCodeExaminersofCaliforniadisclosethatthelanguageofsection2605wasquitedifferentfromthatundertheCode
as adopted in 1872. That language was f ound too harsh as
toinsurancecompanies.TheCodeExaminers'notesstate:"TheamendmentrestoresthelawasitexistedprevioustotheCode:SeeParsons
on Maritime Law, 106, and Phillips on Insurance, sec. 756."The
passage referred to in Phillips on Insurance, was worded by
theauthor as follows:"Any express warranty or condition is always a
part of the policy,but, like any other part of an express contract,
may be written in themargin, or contained in proposals or documents
expressly referred
tointhepolicy,andsomadeapartofit."TheannotatoroftheCivilCode of
Calif ornia, after setting forth these facts, adds:"* * * The
section as it now reads is in harmony with therule that a warranty
may be contained in another instrument than
thepolicywhenexpresslyreferredtointhepolicyasformingapart8/9/2015
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
5/11thereof: * *
*."WhatwehaveabovestatedhasbeenparaphrasedfromthedecisionoftheCaliforniaCourtofAppealsinthecaseofIsaacUpham
Co. vs.UnitedStatesFidelity&GuarantyCo. ([1922],
211Pac.,809),andthusdisclosestheattitudeoftheCaliforniacourts.Likewise
in the Federal courts, in the case of Conner vs. ManchesterAssur.
Co.([1904],130Fed.,743),section2605oftheCivilCodeofCaliforniacameunderobservation,anditwassaidthatit"isineffect
an affirmance of the generally accepted doctrine applicable tosuch
contracts."We,therefore,thinkitwrongtoholdthattheCalifornialawrepresentsaradicaldeparturefromthebasicprinciplesgoverningthelawofinsurance.WearemoreinclinedtobelievethatthecodificationofthelawofCaliforniahadexactlytheoppositepurpose,
and that in the language of the Federal court it was but
anaffirmanceofthegenerallyaccepteddoctrineapplicabletosuchcontracts.
This being380380 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDAng Giok Chip vs.
Sprinfield Fire & Marine Insurance
Co.true,weturntotwoofsuchwellrecognizeddoctrines.Inthefirstplace,
it is well settled that a rider attached to a policy is a part of
thecontract,tothesameextentandwithlikeeffectasifactuallyembodiedtherein.(ICouch,CyclopediaofInsuranceLaw,sec.159.)Inthesecondplace,itisequallywellsettledthatanexpresswarrantymustappearuponthefaceofthepolicy,orbeclearlyincorporated
therein and made a part thereof by explicit reference, orby words
clearly evidencing such intention. (4 Couch, Cyclopedia ofInsurance
Law, sec. 862.)Section 65 of the Insurance Act and its counterpart,
section 2605of the Civil Code of California, will bear analysis as
tested by
reasonandauthority.Thelawsaysthateveryexpresswarrantymustbe"contained
in the policy itself." The word "contained," according
tothedictionaries,means"included,""inclosed,""embraced,""comprehended,"etc.When,therefore,thecourtsspeakofariderattached
to the policy, and thus "embodied" therein, or of a
warranty"incorporated" in the policy, it is believed that the
phrase
"containedinthepolicyitself"mustnecessarilyincludesuchriderandwarranty.Astothealternativerelatingto"anotherinstrument,""instrument"
as here used could not mean a mere slip of paper like arider, but
something akin to the policy itself, which in section 48 ofthe
Insurance Act is defined as "The written instrument, in which
a8/9/2015 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
6/11contract of insurance is set forth." In California, every paper
writingisnotnecessarilyan"instrument"withinthestatutorymeaningoftheterm.Theword"instrument"hasawelldefineddefinitioninCalifornia,
and as used in the Codes invariably means some
writtenpaperorinstrumentsignedanddeliveredbyonepersontoanother,transferringthetitleto,orgivingalien,onproperty,orgivingaright
to debt or duty. (Hoag vs. Howard [1880], 55 Cal., 564; Peoplevs.
Fraser [1913], 137 Pac., 276.) In other words, the rider,
warrantyF,iscontainedinthepolicyitself,becausebythecontractofinsurance
agreed to by the parties381VOL. 56, DECEMBER 31, 1931 381Ang Giok
Chip vs. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance
Co.itismadetoformapartofthesame,butisnotanotherinstrumentsigned by
the insured and referred to in the policy as forming a partof
it.Again,referringtothejurisprudenceofCalifornia,anotherruleofinsuranceadoptedinthatStateisinpoint.Itisadmittedthatthepolicybeforeuswasacceptedbytheplaintiff.Thereceiptofthispolicy
by the insured without objection binds both the acceptor
andtheinsuredtothetermsthereof.Theinsuredmaynotthereafterbeheard to
say that he did not read the policy or know its terms, since itis
his duty to read his policy and it will be assumed that he did so.
InCaliforniaJurisprudence,vol.14,p.427,fromwhichthesestatementsaretakenwithcitationstoCaliforniadecisions,itisaddedthatithasbeenheldthatwheretheholderofapolicydiscovers
a mistake made by himself and the local agent in
attachingthewrongridertohisapplication,electstoretainthepolicyissuedto
him, and neither requests the issuance of a different one nor
offerstopaythepremiumrequisitetoinsureagainsttheriskwhichhebelieved
the rider to cover, he thereby accepts the
policy.Wearegiventounderstand,andthereisnoindicationtothecontrary,thatwehavehereastandardinsurancepolicy.Wearefurthergiventounderstand,andthereisnoindicationtothecontrary,
that the issuance of the policy in this case with its
attachedriderconformstowellestablishedpracticeinthePhilippinesandelsewhere.Wearefurthergiventounderstand,andthereisnoindicationtothecontrary,thattherearenolessthansixty-nineinsurancecompaniesdoingbusinessinthePhilippineIslandswithoutstanding
policies more or less similar to the one involved in
thiscase,andthattonullifysuchpolicieswouldplaceanunnecessaryhindranceinthetransactionsofinsurancebusinessinthe8/9/2015
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
7/11Philippines.Thesearemattersofpublicpolicy.WecannotbelievethatitwaseverthelegislativeintentiontoinsertinthePhilippineLaw
on Insurance an382382 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDAng Giok Chip vs.
Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance
Co.oddity,anincongruity,entirelyoutofharmonywiththelawasfoundinotherjurisdictions,anddestructiveofgoodbusinesspractice.WehavestudiedthiscasecarefullyandhavingdonesohavereachedthedefiniteconclusionthatwarrantyF,ariderattachedtothefaceoftheinsurancepolicy,andreferredtointhecontractofinsurance,isvalidandsufficientundersection65oftheInsuranceAct.
Accordingly, sustaining the first and fourth errors assigned,
anditbeingunnecessarytodiscusstheremainingerrors,theresultwillbe to
reverse the judgment appealed from and to order the dismissalof the
complaint, without special pronouncement as to costs in
eitherinstance.Street, Villamor, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ.,
concur.VILLA-REAL, J.,
dissenting:IfullyconcurinthedissentingopinionpennedbyJusticeImperial,andfurthersaythatariderorslipattachedtoaninsurancepolicy,thoughreferredtothereinasmakingapartofit,isnotoneoftheformsprescribedbysection65oftheInsuranceLawinwhichanexpress
warranty may be made to appear validly so as to be
bindingbetweentheinsurerandtheinsured.Therearetwo,andonlytwoforms
provided in said section by which an express warranty may
bemadetoappearvalidly,towit:byembodimenteitherintheinsurance policy
itself or in another instrument signed by the insuredand referred
to in the policy as making a part of it.Now the question arises as
to whether the rider or slip
containingsaidwarrantyFattachedtothepolicyinquestionandreferredtotherein
as making a part thereof is one of the two forms provided insaid
section 65 of the Insurance
Law.Itisadmittedthatitisnotthesecondform,becausenotbeingsigned by
the insured it does not constitute an instrument. (Hoag
vs.Howard[1880],55Cal.,564;Peoplevs.Fraser[1913],137Pac.,276.)3838/9/2015
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
8/11VOL. 56, DECEMBER 31, 1931 383Ang Giok Chip vs. Springfield
Fire & Murine Insurance
Co.Isitthefirstformrequiredbylaw,thatis,isitcontainedinthepolicyitself?Itissocontendedinthemajorityopinionandauthorities
are cited in support of such contention.In 1 Couch, Cyclopedia of
Insurance Law, par. 159, it is said that"as a general rule, a rider
or slip attached to a policy or certificate ofinsurance is, prima
facieatleast,apartofthecontracttothesameextent,andwithlikeeffect,asifactuallyembodiedtherein,provided,
of course, that it does not violate any statutory inhibition,and
has been lawfully, and sufficiently attached, * * *" (See also
32Corpus Juris, 1159, par.
270).Doestheattachmentofariderorslipcontaininganexpresswarrantycontravenetheprovisionsofsection65oftheInsuranceLaw?
When the law, in order to protect the insured, requires that
anexpress warranty be contained in the policy or in another
instrumentreferredtothereinasmakingapartthereof,itcouldnothavebeenitsintentiontopermitthatsuchexpresswarrantybecontainedinapiece
of paper not signed by the insured although it is attached to
thepolicyandreferredtothereinasmakingapartthereof,becauseitwould be
contrary to the requirement that such express warranty becontained
in an instrument signed by the insured. It is a general ruleof
statutory construction that a law should not be so construed as
toproduceanabsurdresult.Itwouldcertainlybeanabsurdityifsection 65
of the Insurance Law were construed as requiring that
anexpresswarrantybecontainedonlyinthepolicyorinanotherinstrument
signed by the insured and referred to therein as making apart
thereof for the protection of such insured, and at the same
timepermittingthatsuchexpresswarrantybecontainedinapieceofpaper not
signed by the insured but simply attached to the policy andreferred
to therein as making a part thereof, thus opening the door
tofraud,it being easy to detach such rider or slip and change it
withanother,which is precisely384384 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
ANNOTATEDAng Giok Chip vs. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance
Co.whatthelawistryingtoprevent.Itwillthusbeseenthattheattachmentofariderorslipcontaininganexpresswarrantytoapolicy,althoughreferredtothereinasmakingapartthereof,iscontrarytotheevidentintentandpurposeofsection65ofthe8/9/2015
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
9/11Insurance
Law.InthecaseofIsaacUphamCo.vs.UnitedStatesFidelity&GuarantyCo.(211Pac.,809),citedinthemajorityopinion,thequestionwaswhetherawarrantycontainedinanapplicationforinsurance,whichwasnotreferredtointhepolicyasmakingapartthereof,
incorporated said warranty in the said policy and was
valid.TheSupremeCourtofCaliforniaheldthatitwasnot,forlackofsuch
reference. Of course an application for insurance is a
documentsignedbytheinsured,andanexpresswarrantycontainedthereinifreferred
to in the policy as making a part thereof, will be consideredas
contained therein in accordance with law.In the case of Conner vs.
Manchester Assur. Co. (130 Fed., 743),also cited in the majority
opinion, the question was whether an
openpolicywasawarrantyandtheCircuitCourtofAppealsfortheNorthern
District of California held that it was not, and further
saidthat"section2605oftheCivilCodeofCalifornia(fromwhichsection 65
of theInsurance Law wastaken)was
evidentlyintendedtoexpressinstatutoryformtherulethatnoexpresswarrantymadebytheinsuredshallaffectthecontractofinsurance,unlessitbecontainedinthepolicyorintheapplication,orsomeotherinstrumentsignedbytheinsuredandmadeapartofthecontract,andisineffectanaffirmanceofthegenerallyaccepteddoctrineapplicable
to such contracts." It will be seen from this statement
thatthecourtinenumeratingtheformsinwhichanexpresswarrantymaybeexpressedormadetoappeardoesnotmentionanypaperwhich
is not signed by the
insured.Thefactthatformanyyearsithasbeenthepracticeoftheinsurancecompaniestouseridersorslipsofpaperscontainingexpress
warranties without the signature of the385VOL. 56, DECEMBER 31,
1931 385Ang Giok Chip vs. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance
Co.insured in violation of the law is no reason why such practice
shouldbe permitted to continue when its legality is
questioned.Inviewoftheforegoingconsideration,Iamconstrainedtodissent
from the opinion of the majority.IMPERIAL, J., with whom concurs
AVANCEA, C. J.,
dissenting:Thedecisionofthiscasedependedprincipally,butwholly,onthe
validity of the warranty F, Exhibit A-2. This instrument consistsof
a slip of paper pasted on the margin of a page of the fire
insurancepolicy.Itcontainsthestipulationthattheinsuredispermittedtostore
in the building concerned the hazardous goods specified, to
an8/9/2015 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
10/11amountnotexceedingthreepercentofthetotalvalueofthemerchandisestored.Thepolicymakesreferencetothisriderasfollows:"Thispolicyissubjecttothehereonattached'OrdinaryShortPeriodRateScale/WarrantiesAandF,Co-insurancesclauseand
Three Fourths Loss Clause' which are forming part of the same";but
the rider is not signed by the insured.Section 65 of Act No. 2427
(Insurance Law) reads as
follows:"Everyexpresswarranty,madeatorbeforetheexecutionofapolicy,mustbecontainedinthepolicyitself,orinanotherinstrumentsignedbytheinsuredandreferredtointhepolicy,asmaking
a part of it."An express warranty, then, made at or before the
execution of
thepolicy,likewarrantyF,isvalidonlyifitiscontainedinthepolicyitself,
or in another instrument signed by the insured and referred
tointhepolicyasformingapartthereof.ExaminingwarrantyF,itmaybeseenthatitdoesnotformanintegralpartofthepolicybutappeals
on another slip of paper pasted on the policy; it is
thereforeaninstrumentotherthanthepolicyandcomesunderthesecondparagraphprovidedforinsection65.And,accordingtothisprovision,warrantyFcannotbevalidorbinding,forthesimplereason
that it is not signed386386 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
Ponce de
Leonbytheinsured,andhasnoweight,notwithstandingthefactthatreferenceismadetoitinageneralwayinthebodyofthepolicy.This
reference is not equivalent to including it in the policy, for
thesimple reason, as we have said, that it was made in a general
way.
ItismentionedsimplyaswarrantyF,withoutgivinganyideaofitscontents.Thetermoftheridermightbechangedandtheheading"WarrantyP"retained,and,followingtheappellant'slineofreasoning,itmight,withequalplausibility,bedefendedastheexpress
warranty agreed upon, because it was headed "Warranty
F."Itisjustsuchalterationsasthisthatthelawseekstopreventinrequiringthatallwarrantiesofthekindaretobesignedbytheinsured
and ref erred to in the policy.Setting aside for the moment the
legal question of the validity
ofthewarranty,andassumingwarrantyFtobevalid,wehavetoconsideranothercircumstancewhichindicatesthattheinsureddidnotviolateit.Thetrialcourtfoundthatatthetimeofthefire,theinflammable
goods in the warehouses or building of the insured didnot exceed
the amount permitted by the insurance company, that is,8/9/2015
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
056http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f108751174cc8d260000a0094004f00ee/p/ALN120/?username=Guest
11/11threepercentofthetotalvalueofthemerchandisestored.Thisfindingisborneoutbytheevidence,andthereisnoreasonforchanging
it and making
another.Forthesereasons,Ibelievethejudgmentappealedfromshouldbe
affirmed in its entirety.Judgment reversed.___________ Copyright
2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
