*1 applicable to the that case we the conclusion of do ordin- under consideration. statute and the facts here pub- prohibited to acts in that did not confine anee case a halls, 25 feet of all rooms within lic dance but included public recognized dances and that residence. It police subjects proper of the for the exercise dance halls power. A.L.R. 144 and 60 annotations in 48 A.L.R. public that all to 173. We understand counsel contend subject regula- halls are not of the same class dance City 591, Milwaukee, Wis. In tion. Mehlos discussing scope L.R.A.,N.S., N.W. regulate public power and limitation to license meeting places meetings dances, “Public the court said: disorderly by conditions are liable to be characterized which immorality promote peace have, or lead breaches subjects police regu- universally, proper been considered fall lation. Public dances and dance halls latter think that there is no basis for that class.” We public here in is not dance hall of the nature with- regulated in police power. be the exercise the class which appellant’s We have considered contentions rulings rejection upon the admission and erred rulings prejudicial evidence, error in the but find com- plained of. judgment appealed from is affirmed. SICKE'L, P.J., JJ.,
RUDOLPH, and SMITH HAYES, J., dissents. Respondent, CO., MUTUAL INS.
SUNSHINE Appellants al., ADDY et (47 285) N. W.2d Opinion April 1951) (File No. 9134. filed May 29, Rehearing denied *2 Simons, Johnson, Falls, Blaine T. R. for Defend- Sioux Appellant. ant and
Bielski, Lewis, Falls, Elliott & Sioux for Petitioner in Appellant. intervention and Roy & Burns, Burns,
Caldwell Crandall, B. Howard B. Swark, R. N. Falls, all of Sioux for Plaintiff Re- spondent. declaratory
PER CURIAM.This anis action to obtain a judgment policy. By as to the of an insurance its plaintiff agreed indemnify Addy against terms, defendant bodily injuries arising claims for caused ownership, out of the maintenance or use of the motor ve- described hicle in the The truck described therein appears opinion was involved in an accident as from our prior appeal reported rendered on a N.W.2d in 72 S.D. 10 A.L.R.2d 670. Paragraph policy provides applies VI the it only occurring to accidents
maintained and used for the as in the declarations.
It is stated in Item 5 of the declarations: “The (a) for which the automobile tois be used are farm use ‘pleasure personal, pleasure, term and business’ is defined as (b) family and business use. the term ‘commercial’is defined -principally as the named use— including as in Item insured stated occasional use (c) personal, pleasure, family purposes, and business Use the load- stated includes the automobile of ing unloading thereof.” The business appears “Farmer”. Item insured, as liability policy is limited of an automobile designated to this effect The cases the uses prior appeal. opinion rendered on Sun are cited in Addy, supra. de The trial court Mutual Ins. Co. v. shine use of at termined from the evidence “farm within the terms of was a use" time accident sufficiency of the evidence to sustain this the finding prior ap on the before this court was the rejected majority opinion peal. The the contention that the finding *3 reversed the evidence sustained this and undisputed upon a retrial The facts were not and below. testimony It is that such was submitted. clear additional justified trial in of would not have view evidence prior in truck in that the was decision being purpose. used a farm for further
We now concerned with contention that are proper interpretation quoted Item 5 under of above farming word “commercial” and includes activities use” for other than “farm came occasional use truck following printed: Item 5 is “The which the to be are-”. In the automobile is used blank typed “pleasure use”. the words “farm The words normally business” or would “commercial” be inserted. The definition of the term was intended to “commercial” not phrases, plain exclude the use of other casional use but make that oc- of an insured vehicle connected with occupation of its was within the business of the owner Indemnity Littlefield Phoenix Ins. Co., 420; N.H. A. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. Blankenship, F,2d Cir., 784. This definition has reference trucks or other commercial vehicles and ob- viously purposes. used for farm We includes trucks ambiguity agreement in the terms of the is that and that occasional
use of the truck for business business other than the insured was within the ambigu- terms of the Even if the terms thereof were having prepared by ous, plaintiff the contract been would against be construed it. below is reversea. SMITH, JJ,
ROBERTS specially. SICKEL, J., concurs RUDOLPH, P.J, HAYES, J., dissent. (concurring specially). SICKEL, policy J. declares: “Item 1. The the named Insured is farmer. Item 5. The for which the automobile policy provides: to be used are farm use.” The also “This policy applies only to accidents which occur and to direct during losses to the insured which are sustained * * * policy period main- tained and used for the stated as in the declarations.” purpose specified policy
“Farm use” is the
in this
precedent
right
recovery.
such use
ais
condition
to the
imply
However, these words do not
the truck
purpose.
never be used
Peirce,
Terrasi v.
304 Mass.
taining repairs
I concur in the reversal of of the circuit court for the reasons stated above.