# MacKintosh v. Agricultural Fire Ins. Co.

> California Supreme Court · February 6, 1907 · 150 Cal. 440

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3300753

## Case

- **Full name:** CHARLES H. MACKINTOSH, Appellant, v. AGRICULTURAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 6, 1907
- **Citations:** 150 Cal. 440; 89 P. 102; 1907 Cal. LEXIS 535
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Beatty
- **Judges:** Beatty, Shaw
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3300753

## Opinion text

BEATTY, C. J.
I dissent from the order denying a rehearing of this cause. It is conceded that there was no watchman on duty, but it is held that the works were in operation. This conclusion, in my opinion, is opposed to any reasonable construction of the policy.
I dissent also from the doctrine that the parties to a written contract cannot bind themselves by a stipulation that it shall not be altered except by an agreement in writing. By such a stipulation they merely import into the particular contract the beneficent principle of the statute of frauds, thereby protecting themselves from, the consequences of false claims of alterations.
I deprecate especially the disposition of courts to deprive insurers on slight and insufficient grounds of the benefit of proper stipulations- and conditions inserted in their policies for the legitimate and laudable' purpose of compelling the insured to protect the insured property from unnecessary and easily prevented hazards.' The necessary effect of such a course of decision is to increase premium rates, and the final result in the long run is that careful and honest policy-holders pay for the losses of the reckless and dishonest.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3300753. Public record. Not legal advice.